Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NOTTINGHAM PARK ESTATE BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]

RIVER TEES BARRAGE AND CROSSING BILL [Lords]

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Monday 2 April.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],

That the Bill be now considered.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 19 April.

Mr. Speaker: As the 10 remaining Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [27 February],

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 19 April.

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

SHARD BRIDGE BILL (By Order)

VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 19 April.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Small Businesses

Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many small businesses were set up in Northern Ireland in 1989; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): That information is not yet available for 1989. The Government continue to assist the development of small businesses through the Local Enterprise Development Unit and have increased its funding by £4·7 million, or 17 per cent., to more than £33 million for 1991.

Dr. Clark: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Local Enterprise Development Unit, unique to Northern Ireland, is doing a most satisfactory job in promoting small businesses and employment in the Province? How many small businesses have been assisted by LEDU and how many jobs have been created since LEDU was founded in 1971?

Mr. Needham: Many thousands of small companies have been assisted and 43,000 jobs have been promoted by LEDU since 1971. Last year 5,004 jobs were promoted at a cost of £4,400 per job. LEDU is upping its target for new jobs to 10,000 per year in 1994. As my hon. Friend said, there is no doubt that the creation of small businesses and the work created is crucial to the economic success of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: What advice would the Minister give to small businesses that feel that they are being forced to use LEDU-nominated professional advisers when preparing business plans for grant applications? Will he take steps to reduce the time taken to process such applications?

Mr. Needham: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's last point first. It is crucial that we get as much of the work through as fast as we can. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking on that. It is up to the company concerned to determine which professional adviser it uses. Clearly, there will be those who have greater expertise on this subject, and LEDU's advice should be listened to carefully. In the final instance, it must be up to the companies.

Hospices

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on Government funding to hospices in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Needham: A total of £530,000, a 100 per cent. increase in the present level of funding, will be made available in 1990–91 to provide, for the first time, a firm public sector financial base for the support of hospices in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for that wonderful reply. Hospices have been funded through charitable donations in the United Kingdom—in my constituency, in


Weymouth, people have been excellent in putting money into that sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that such community involvement is similar to the Government's opting-out proposals? Does he think that that will happen even more in the Province of Northern Ireland? Where will the additional funding be spent in the Province?

Mr. Needham: There is, of course, a need for a partnership with those involved with the terminally ill. There is a wonderful record of voluntary service and help to the terminally ill in Northern Ireland. The Government feel that they must do whatever they can to help and are increasing their spending this year by £530,000—£530,000 more than last year—and in 1991–92 they plan to spend a further £200,000. The objective is to obtain a 50:50 partnership with the voluntary organisations. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is crucial to keep the partnership going and to attract as many private donations and as much support as we can, particularly from the business side. I think that he will agree that the Budget measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will help in that.

Mr. Hume: As the Minister will be aware from correspondence from me, a vast amount of voluntary effort in the Derry area has gone into setting up the Foyle hospice, demonstrating the need for that service there. Is he now telling us that at last the Government will fund that hospice?

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman knows that hospices in Northern Ireland are a regional service, but the Foyle hospice is not regional in that sense. However, he also knows that the Department has suggested to the boards that they negotiate the funding of the revenue element with the hospices, and that applies to the Foyle hospice. I hope that the discussions that I believe are about to take place between the Western board and the Foyle hospice will lead to a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Dickens: When my hon. Friend next considers the funding of hospices in Northern Ireland, will he also consider funding for hospices in the north-west, such as those at Oldham and Rochdale?

Mr. Needham: Up to now I have not considered that, but I shall bring it to the notice of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State who has responsibility for health matters in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ashdown: The Minister said that he hoped that the discussions to which he referred would lead to a satisfactory conclusion, but will he confirm that the Government's view of a satisfactory conclusion includes funding the Foyle hospice, which not only serves the people of the Foyle area in a way that no hospice in Belfast can, but serves the region across the border and so builds the type of cross-border relationships that must be necessary? Will he confirm that the Government's view is that the hospice should be funded?

Mr. Needham: Of course, the hospice has to be funded. Up to now it has not been considered to be a regional hospice, and I do not see why it should be. But, as I said, it is an important movement, which has been supported at all levels in the Derry area, and the Government and the Department have been saying through their policy that we look to the Western board to come to a satisfactory conclusion with the hospice.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the additional funds, having pressed for them in the past, and I should like to share in the tribute that has been paid to the hospice movement, but am I right to infer that it is looked upon as a regional service? If so, does that mean that there will be Government limitations on developments in Foyle, Newry or anywhere else where voluntary bodies come together?

Mr. Needham: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has been a great supporter of the hospice movement and has done much to enable it to develop throughout Northern Ireland. As I said, the funds are earmarked for the boards and it is up to them to negotiate how those funds will be distributed in each area. The aim of the Government and the Department is to move to a 50 per cent. funding arrangement with the hospices.

Anglo-Irish Conference

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will propose that the secretariat for the Anglo-Irish Conference be transferred to Dublin.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): No, Sir. I have no current plans to make such a proposal.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Was the location of the secretariat in Northern Ireland part of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? If not, does the Secretary of State agree that if it were to spend half the year in Dublin, the considerable security costs, which currently fall on the British taxpayer and none of which are borne by the Republic would be halved? Does he further agree that if it were in Dublin, it would enable the Irish Government to show that no matter what perverse judgments come from the Supreme Court, they stand by the good faith of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and, in particular, article I of that agreement?

Mr. Brooke: Article 3 of the agreement says:
A Secretariat shall be established by the two Governments to service the Conference on a continuing basis in the discharge of its functions as set out in this agreement.
It does not specifically state any geographical location. The Secretariat is in Belfast because that is the most efficient place for it to do business. I have no evidence that the Irish Government do not stand by article 1 of the agreement.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Having confirmed that there is no reference whatever to Maryfield in the Anglo-Irish Agreement—news which will be welcomed throughout Northern Ireland—does the Secretary of State agree that that gives him the option to consider a different location for the Anglo-Irish secretariat, if there is any necessity for the secretariat? Will he confirm that our concept of the secretariat must have changed since the ruling by the Supreme Court of Dublin that the Dublin representatives have a constitutional imperative to pursue a united Ireland through their agencies, including the Anglo-Irish secretariat?

Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in stating that I have that freedom, as exemplified in the article of the agreement that I read out, but, as I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), I do not currently have such a


proposal. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I do not accept the premise that was contained in the second part of his question.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State recall that when the Government's salesmen were attempting to sell the advantages of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to the Unionist community, they put forward two premises—that there would be recognition of Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom by the Government of the Irish Republic, and that there would be better co-operation on security, including extradition? Now that those two claims have been blown out of the water by the Supreme Court of the Irish Republic, will the Secretary of State list for the House the remaining advantages of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that could not be obtained from other sources?

Mr. Brooke: That is the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the events, but he made a specific reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court. We do not accept the claim to Northern Ireland in article 2 of the Irish constitution. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom in our law and our international law. It is important that we look to the future. Successive Irish Governments have accepted the factual status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. Article 1 of the agreement provides that any change to the status of Northern Ireland would come about only with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman draws attention to extradition matters that we have raised with the Irish Government through the secretariat.

Sir William Clark: Irrespective of the location of the secretariat, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be much fairer if both Governments shared the costs?

Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend's steady fiscal attitude, but I am also concerned with the efficiency of the secretariat, and that is most efficiently conducted in Belfast.

Inward Investment

Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about inward investment into Northern Ireland.

Mr. Needham: We have achieved a number of notable inward investment successes during the past two years, and I am confident that we shall be able to build on those successes.

Mr. Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that those successes demonstrate the confidence of overseas investors in the economy of Northern Ireland? Can he say from which countries the investment is principally coming?

Mr. Needham: It is not always appreciated how great the change in the fortunes of the Northern Ireland economy has been over the past few years and how it is growing. In the past year we have had Fruit of the Loom from the United States—the single largest American investment in Northern Ireland for 10 years—Daewoo from Korea, Montupet from France and Holian from Hong Kong. We are about to announce a German company coming soon to the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and another company coming from Japan. We have Harris Laboratories from

the United States. We are creating thousands of new jobs from inward investment in Northern Ireland because the people who come there realise what a wonderful place it is and what wonderful people we are.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that, within a reasonable time after interview, officials of the Industrial Development Board should be capable of providing a new business promoter with a letter of offer indicative of the support that might be forthcoming from the IDB? Does he further agree that every inquiry must be treated seriously and with sensitivity, to ensure that we do not lose anyone who might ultimately locate in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Needham: Of course, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. It is crucial that the scope and scale of inward investment is fully understoood before the IDB—a body which spends taxpayers' money—makes an indicative offer. Subject to that, an indicative offer can and should be made.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister accept that the bombings in Castlederg and Ballymena have hampered his efforts to attract inward investment to the Province? What encouragement have the Government given to investment in the Mid-Ulster constituency which has suffered so much from unemployment? Is it not true that it is better to have a stable environment, with the defeat of terrorism, and to allow the jobs that have been set up to remain, rather than, after years of hard work by the Department, to allow the IRA to demolish that in a few seconds with a bomb?

Mr. Needham: I am pleased to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman for once. The recent damage at Castlederg was another dreadful, exasperating and pointless blow to that little town. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that we are establishing a project in Castlederg, which will involve all its people, to find a way forward, to attract investment and to bring the community together to rebuild its soul. For maniacs to blow apart the wishes of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland is utterly despicable.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that if the poll tax were introduced in Northern Ireland, it would greatly affect inward investment? Does he know—and will he condemn it—that East Antrim Conservative association has called for the implementation of the poll tax in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is a member of that association? I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that all of them are infected with mad cow disease.

Mr. Needham: The community charge is unlikely to have any effect on inward investment in Northern Ireland. One of the incentives that we offer is that people do not have to pay rates. That is one of the main reasons for people wishing to invest in Northern Ireland.

Tourism

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to develop the tourism potential of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to promote tourism in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Needham: Encouraging progress is being made in implementing our published strategy for improving the economic return from tourism in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that, with the obvious exception of Southend-on-Sea, Northern Ireland is probably one of the most delightful places to enjoy a holiday? Will he use the powers of British embassies to destroy Northern Ireland's unfair reputation abroad and to explain that one can enjoy a holiday and delightful scenery and expect much hospitality at a low cost in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Needham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I spent a holiday with my family in Northern Ireland two years ago, and it was one of the best holidays that I have ever had. I am sure that it will not be too long before you, Mr. Speaker, spend a holiday in Northern Ireland golfing, walking, sailing, eating, drinking, or pony trekking. We must increase the number of people employed in tourism, which at present is only 9,000 compared with 90,000 in the Republic. Once people have spent a holiday in Northern Ireland, they come back time and again.

Mr. Boswell: Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), does my hon. Friend agree that agriculture can be supplemented by tourism as a major revenue earner in all parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland? Will he confirm that those who visit the countryside of Northern Ireland are as much at risk from terrorism as from a case of snakebite?

Mr. Needham: Yes, or mad cow disease for that matter. Some 1 million people visited Northern Ireland last year—the first time that that figure had been achieved since 1969. We have set ourselves the objective of raising that figure to 1·6 million by 1994. Next year is Ulster-Canada year, when we expect to double the number of Canadians visiting Ulster. We shall have a tremendous festival in Belfast so that the city can have a year of fun and enjoyment, and everyone here is welcome.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Belfast city airport on achieving such an impressive record in passenger throughput in the limited time that it has been in operation? Will he assure the House that in the event of Bombardier geting rid of that valuable asset, a monopoly will not then be created whereby the Northern Ireland international airports might be interested in taking over Belfast city airport? Will he further ensure that Belfast city airport will be encouraged to develop as a single entity?

Mr. Needham: Airports are not my responsibility, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who is responsible, has listened carefully to the question.

Mr. Stott: I am sure that the Minister is aware that a recent article by Mr. Bert O'Hara, who is the executive director of the Northern Ireland tourist board, in the The House Magazine sets out clearly how well tourism is doing in Northern Ireland. The Minister referred to the figure of

1·12 million people who have visited Northern Ireland in the past 12 months to take a holiday. We welcome the increase in that figure and hope that it will continue. Will the Minister comment on a rather interesting suggestion from Dr. William Hastings, the president of the Northern Ireland chamber of commerce and industry? He addressed a meeting recently and called for
a chamber of tourism for all Ireland.
Will the Minister comment on what I believe is a good suggestion?

Mr. Needham: Certainly for tourism to succeed in the north, it must be carried out in co-operation with the south and with Bord Failte. I have no doubt that we shall build on those links because we have an awful lot to offer to anyone who comes from the south and who would like to spend a few extra days in the north with us. I always listen carefully to the views of Dr. Hastings and we shall see what further links we can build between north and south to attract more people to come.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that single questions at Question Time mean that we can get further down the Order Paper, which is for the benefit of the whole House.

Downpatrick (Anaesthetist Post)

Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the hon. Member for South Down may expect an answer to his written question of 5 March about the appointment of the permanent third anaesthetist post to the Down group of hospitals in Downpatrick.

Mr. Needham: The answer was given on 15 March 1990.

Mr. McGrady: Does the Minister agree that for the anaesthetist's post not to be filled at Down hospital for two years is a public health hazard? Is he aware that the anaesthetists at Down hospital have a work load two and a half times that at Belfast City hospital? Will he intervene with the board, as his noble Friend the Under-Secretary did last September, when he insisted on compulsory competitive tendering to save a few pounds? Will the hon. Gentleman intervene now and direct the board to appoint a permanent anaesthetist to save a few lives?

Mr. Needham: The hon. Gentleman and I have been corresponding on the third anaesthetist consultant post at Down hospital for almost as long as I can remember. I wrote to him in February 1989 saying that a third consultant post was to be advertised. I also wrote to him in July 1989 saying that it would be a locum post while anaesthetist cover was examined not only for Down hospital, but for Lagan hospital and the others in the area. I realise the difficulties there, which must be sorted out. The hon. Gentleman is in discussion with the chairman of the board and I shall pass on his points to my noble Friend. The hon. Gentleman has been told exactly what the position is.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is not there a real need for improvement in communications between the Department of Health and Social Services and the various health boards in the light of the experience of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and in the light of my


own experience? It took the Department three solid months to reply to me saying that it had passed a constituent's problem to the relevant health board.

Mr. Needham: If there has been an error between the Department and the health board, I am sure that the Department will apologise for it. Generally speaking, I have found that relationships between the boards, the Department, Ministers and the chairman are very good and work extremely well.

De Lorean

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of recovery of money from the De Lorean car company and associated ventures.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): So far, £12·6 million has been recovered. A number of claims are still being pursued in this country and abroad.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister accept that I warned Labour and Conservative Governments, who poured £84 million into the venture, that it was fraudulent from the very beginning? I suggest that the Minister should ask some of the social services inspectors, who are busy hounding single-parent families, to turn their attention to the outstanding sums of money. In particular, will he assure the House that he will pursue the recovery of the £20 million that was spirited away by Lotus Cars through GPD Investments?

Mr, Cope: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's long connection with and involvement in that matter. I am also aware of what went wrong. We shall continue to pursue all the money that we can in every available court here, the United States and Switzerland.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who sat on the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into that disgraceful affair want to know how my right hon. Friend is getting on with his legal action against Arthur Andersen and also why no one has been brought to trial for the criminal swindling which was clearly revealed in the report?

Mr. Cope: I am not prepared to discuss in detail the current litigation against Arthur Andersen except to say that it is continuing. The Serious Fraud Office is continuing its inquiries into the matter and one person is currently on remand to Belfast magistrates court in connection with that.

Northern Ireland Electricity

Mr, Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity.

Mr. Brooke: A White Paper on privatisation proposals will be published later this year.

Mr, Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for that unusually helpful answer. Will he give us a likely estimate of the increase in electricity prices that will flow from privatisation on the one hand and from decoupling from

the Great Britain link on the other? Can he also give us an idea of the number of jobs that are likely to be lost as a consequence of privatisation?

Mr. Brooke: Earlier this month I announced the increase in the tariff as from 1 April. That statement was made in the context of present circumstances. The Government have nothing further to say on tariffs at present and will certainly not speculate about tariff levels beyond the coming year. The principle underlying tariffs in the future will be that of charging the economic price Car producing and delivering electricity efficiently in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: May I make it dear that I am totally opposed to the privatisation of the Northern Ireland electricity supply because once that monopoly is placed in private hands, the price of electricity, which is already far higher than in Scotland, will increase to the detriment of industrial and domestic consumers in Northern Ireland who already suffer the highest cost of living in the United Kingdom? I say to the Government, 'Hands off our electricity."

Mr, Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making clear beyond peradventure his attitude towards privatisation. However, as he knows, appropriate measures of regulation will accompany the introduction of privatisation.

Mr. Jim Marshal: The Secretary of State will recall that some months ago the Minister of State promised that we would have a White Paper on privatisation in the near future. That statement was made at the back end of last year, but there is still no sign of the White Paper. Will the Secretary of State tell us when, or if, that White Paper will see the light of day?

Mr. Brooke: I have already said that it will be published kW this year. The -near future- is an elastic term in Northern Ireland.

Shoppers (Flee Movement)

Mr. Tharnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the European Court case brought by the Government following restrictions made by the Irish Government on the free movement of shoppers from that country.

Mr. Cope: The case against the Government of the Republic of Ireland was brought by the Europe= Commission, and was heard by the European Court of Justice on 21 February when the United Kingdom Government was represented by Treasury counsel who advanced our view that the restrictions were contrary to European law and damaging to the economy of Northern Ireland. The Advocate-General of the court delivered his opinion on 21 March, but a date has not yet been fixed for the court's judgment.

Mr. Tharnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that the Irish Government are persisting with this absurd restriction,, which will have to go? Will not that be much to the benefit not only of traders, but of Irish consumers?

Mr. Cope: Yes. We have made it clear, not only through the courts, which I have just mentioned, but to Irish Ministers, through the Anglo-Irish Conference and in other ways, that we completely oppose the 48-hour rule. It has been in force for too long; the sooner it goes, the better.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that the Sealink and rail services from Northern Ireland to south-west Scotland are used by many shoppers who travel between those two parts of the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that British Rail is planning to axe the sleeper service from Stranraer to Euston? What representations has the right hon. Gentleman or his right hon. and hon. Friends made to British Rail about this? If they have not made any such representations, will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that he will make representations to British Rail to stop the axing of that vital service?

Mr. Cope: It must be a matter for British Rail. Not many people use that service. In any case, it does not arise out of this question, which is about travellers from the Republic of Ireland.

Terrorists (Extradition)

Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had recently with Ministers of the Republic of Ireland about the extradition of convicted or suspected terrorists from the Republic.

Mr. Brooke: Extradition matters were discussed at the latest meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference on 2 March. I have not had the opportunity to speak to Ministers of the Republic of Ireland since the disappointing outcome of the Finucane and Clarke hearings, but I hope to do so shortly.

Mr. Hunter: In the light of the recent case of Dermot Finucane and James Clarke, does my right hon. Friend now agree that the Republic of Ireland is a safe haven for terrorists and that that seriously undermines the validity of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Would not it be better to negotiate and to come to an agreement with Ulster Unionists rather than with a Government who appear to support terrorists?

Mr. Brooke: At the time of the extradition judgments, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in the House that the judgments might give some people the impression that terrorists would have a safe haven in the Republic. The Anglo-Irish Agreement continues to be a serviceable instrument for the discussion of such matters, and in that respect we shall continue to support it.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State protest in the most strenuous manner at the judgment by a majority of Supreme Court judges in the Irish Republic who ruled that political exemption from extradition should
apply to persons charged with politically motivated offences when the objective of such offences was to secure the ultimate unity of the country"?
Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that that amounts to a mandate for terrorist warfare conducted against the Unionist community in Northern Ireland being enshrined within the legal interpretation of the Extradition Act 1965 of the Irish Republic?

Mr. Brooke: The Irish Government have been left in no doubt, through the secretariat, of the strength of our feelings about the judgment to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which he will recall elicited astonishment in the Republic. I agree that the implications for future extradition cases from the Republic, especially those relating to the political offence exception, are extremely serious. However, I do not go as far as the hon. Getleman's final interpretation.

Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Government of the Irish Republic that it is most desirable to remove articles 2 and 3 from the constitution of the Irish Republic? Will he assure the House that he has made such representations, either directly or through the framework of the secretariat?

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is correct to refer to articles 2 and 3, as they relate to the Supreme Court's judgment. In answer to an earlier question, I made quite clear the Government's attitude towards articles 2 and 3.

Mr. William Ross: The Secretary of State says that the Government of the Irish Republic have been left in no doubt as to his strength of feeling. Am Ito understand that he now understands the full meaning of the judgment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) referred?

Mr. Brooke: I did not entirely catch the hon. Gentleman's question, but I point out that the court's judgment has obviously been subjected to considerable scrutiny with a view to the conversations that we shall be having in the future.

Mr. Hayes: Has my right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear.

Hon. Members: Ah!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to ask his question sitting down?

Mr. Hayes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is nice to get a little sympathy.
Has my right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear to the Irish Government that Conservative Members are utterly appalled at the decision of the Irish Supreme Court? Has he warned them that if this sort of behaviour continues, it will provide more ammunition for those people who are against the Anglo-Irish Agreement and who want to undermine relations between this country and the south of Ireland? Does he agree that that would be regrettable?

Mr. Brooke: I know that I speak on behalf of the whole House in expressing sympathy with my hon. Friend for his injuries.
In answer to my hon. Friend's question, I remind the House that this was a decision of the Irish Supreme Court. The Irish Government were acting on our behalf and were as anxious as we were to secure a satisfactory solution. In that light, we shall be having further discussions with the Irish Government.

Mr. McNamara: Does the Secretary of State accept that our overriding concern must be to ensure that offenders are brought to justice—not where they are brought to justice? Given that the use of the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act does not excite the same controversy as


extradition, should not the right hon. Gentleman and his Irish counterpart consider means of increasing the number of cases that are tried under that legislation?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is correct to raise that issue, but it is really one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

Enterprise Agencies

Dr. Woodcock: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many enterprise agencies are currently operating; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Needham: Twenty six, and a further six agencies are at an advanced stage of negotiation.

Dr. Woodcock: Does my hon. Friend agree that enterprise is the key to success in Northern Ireland? How many jobs and how many industrial units are currently being provided by enterprise agency networks in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that it is Conservative Governments who constantly support enterprise?

Mr. Needham: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend. In Northern Ireland we have 800 units, in which 26,000 people are employed. The key to the success of Northern Ireland's economy is the private sector and the creation of small businesses. In that regard, we have a very good record, which will improve.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Minister agree that if this agency is to achieve its aims, it must have a skilled work force at its disposal? Can he explain the remark of the Secretary of State for Employment on 27 March? Referring to training credits, the Secretary of State said:
There are no present plans to extend the scheme to Northern Ireland.—[Official Report, 27 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 215.]

Mr. Needham: We are just about to launch the Training and Employment Agency, which we believe is the first step in substantially improving the skills of our work force. We have a very good education system and many skills, but we believe that we can do much better. The best way of achieving this is through the Training and Employment Agency. Of course, at some stage in the future we shall consider what further steps need to be taken, and whether we should come closer to the system in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Kincora Boys' Home

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the Official Report, I March, column 370, what consideration he has given to allegations that the Army informed the Royal Ulster Constabulary of what was going on at the Kincora boys' home before 24 January 1980.

Mr. Cope: Various statements have been made by individuals, but all these allegations were available and were investigated as fully as possible by the RUC and by Sir George Terry six years and more ago. If anyone has new evidence, will he please put it to the police?

Mr. Dalyell: Have Ministers changed their minds about the authenticity of the two Army documents to which Michael Taylor, the former Army information officer at the time, referred on "Channel 4 News" last night? The

Minister asks for new information. It came from Broderick and from others involved in the programme. Who was right—Ministers or the people who bore witness last night on "Channel 4 News"?

Mr. Cope: I saw the news programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I am in no position to confirm or deny the authenticity of the documents. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the RUC forensic report was inconclusive. That has been known for a long time. As to the individuals who made statements on the programme, all the allegations that were repeated yesterday have been investigated, but we stand ready to look at new evidence if it comes forward. I did not detect any in the programme last night, but I am having the transcript of it carefully examined to see whether there is any new evidence there.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be speaking at the Anglo-German Koenigswinter conference dinner to be held in Cambridge.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister take time off from her engagements to investigate why the out-patient vehicle service in Cheshire has not been raised from the skeleton level to which it was reduced during the ambulance dispute? Is not it wrong that her Government are cost-cutting at the expense of the sick, the infirm and the disabled? Instead of the Prime Minister giving her usual outmoded and outdated statistics on the Health Service, will she take steps immediately to bring that inhuman treatment of patients to an end?

The Prime Minister: I shall refer the detailed matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. I do not give the House outdated statistics. This year, according to contemporary statistics, the taxpayer has contributed an extra £2·4 billion to the National Health Service and next year the taxpayer will be contributing a further £3 billion to the NHS. The total figure was £7·5 billion a year when I came into No. 10 Downing street: now the taxpayer will contribute £29 billion a year to the National Health Service.

Mr. Kirkhope: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Kirkhope: When my right hon. Friend sees Chancellor Kohl tomorrow, will she explain to him that the British people understand Germany's desire for unification, but that they want to be sure that it will strengthen Europe's security and stability and that it will mean the united Germany being a member of NATO, and the presence of British and American forces, with nuclear weapons, on German soil?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. I am sure that be win be listened to carefully because I understand that he was one of the parliamentary observers at the recent East German elections. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Chancellor Kohl has been very firm in his support of NATO and of a united Germany being in NATO. He has also been very firm in his support for American troops and nuclear weapons being stationed on German soil. Those are vital for the future defence of freedom.

Mr.Kinnock: If the Prime Minister had her time again, would she still introduce the poll tax?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr.Kinnock: I am very grateful for that reply— [Interruption.] Does the Prime Minister think that if they had their time again, her hon. Friends would vote for the poll tax?

The Prime Minister: Yes. It is infinitely—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Master: It is infinitely preferable to a rating revaluation, which would put a colossal burden on half the people who reside in local authority areas, and it is infinitely preferable to Labour's roof tax and local income tax.

Mr.: The Prime Minister must be just about the last person in the country who believes all that claptrap. The people of Britain know that from Sunday they will have imposed on them a tax of monstrous injustice and cost, and it win have been imposed by her Government. It is incompatible with democracy.

The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman wisely keeps silent about his own policy of a roof tax plus a local income tax—[interruption.] Of course he does, because the moment he enunciates a policy it is blown sky-high.

Mr. Ashby: My right hon. Friend will know that the whole House is deeply concerned about the discovery of nuclear triggers destined for Iraq, about which there will be a statement later. There has been a steady now of defensive weapons and technology to Iraq over the years. Will my right hon. Friend get together with our European friends as a matter of urgency and institute a meeting to try to stop the flow of this technology and equipment to Iraq and to preserve peace in the middle east?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. The attempted spread of nuclear weapons is very serious and Customs are to be congratulated on having foiled an effort to spread them further. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be answering a private notice question, during which he win make a full statement. In the meantime, we shall urgently be contacting the signatories to the non-proliferation treaty and the missile technology control regime to see what we can do to prevent a repeat of this serious incident.

Mr. Barron: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Barron: Does the Prime Minister think it right that over 42,000 student nurses in Britain on low incomes should have to pay the full rate of poll tax?

The Prime Minister: Before long, most student nurses—those who are not yet registered as full nurses—will be on Project 2000. That means that they will be paid a bursary and treated fully as ordinary students: therefore. they will pay only 20 per cent. of the community charge. Before long, most of them will be on that system. [Interruption.] In the meantime, some student nurses who are in receipt of a salary will be treated like all other trainees who are in receipt of a salary. If the salary were very low, they would be eligible for rebate, but most of them will be paying the community charge in full. That was taken into account in the recent pay award and the speed at which it was implemented.

Sir John Stokes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety about the teaching of English history in our schools? Instead of teaching only what are called themes, why cannot we go back to the good old days when we learnt by heart the names of the kings and queens of England, the names of our warriors and battles and the glorious deeds of our past? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the whole House wants to hear the reply.

The Prime Minister: As usual, my hon.. Friend is absolutely right. What children should be taught in history is the subject of vigorous debate I agree with him. Most of us are expected to learn from experience of history and we cannot do that unless we know it. Children should know the great landmarks of British history and should be taught them at school.

Mr. Hone: Will the Prime Minister recall with me that 16 years ago, 21 working-class people were having a quite drink in public houses in Birmingham when they were blown to pieces by the IRA? Does she agree that there is no greater injustice than an atrocity of that nature because it cannot be changed and those people cannot come out of their graves? Does she further agree that the wave of anger and emotion that swept Britain following that atrocity was both natural and understandable?
Does the Prime Minister agree that it is not understandable that that wave of anger and emotion should distort the course of justice and lead to the conviction of the wrong people? Given the overwhelming evidence that is emerging and the deep anxiety that has been expressed by respected national figures in Britain and abroad, will she now personally order an independent inquiry into the whole affair?

The Prime Minister: Most of us recall the scenes of that terrorist act, and the great tragedy will live with some families for ever. But we do not conduct trial by television. The place to put any new evidence is with the police. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that if there is any fresh evidence in the meantime, of course, it will be looked at carefully. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of investigations that are under way with the


chief constables of the West Midlands and of Devon and Cornwall to inquire into the latest evidence. Then it will be for the prosecuting authorities and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to decide whether any further action should be taken, bearing in mind that there has already been one rehearing by the Court of Appeal, which gave a very detailed judgment.
The hon. Gentleman referred to emotions. We must not let our emotions run away with us either. It is a matter of evidence before the courts, not of feelings.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the need for her trade union electoral reforms was never more obvious than in recent weeks with the dubious electoral practices of the Transport and General Workers Union—the union which sponsors the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: All our measures on trade union reform were well judged and have been of great benefit to ordinary members of trade unions. I hope that one day the Transport and General Workers Union will take a move to the right. It will be very welcome.

Mr. Mullin: Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning her press secretary quietly briefed the press that no new developments have occurred in the past few days in the Birmingham pub bombing case? Would not the appropriate course of action be for the Home Secretary to come to the House and say that out loud so that hon. Members can ask the many questions that arise?

The Prime Minister: No. A television programme alters nothing. We do not have trial by television, and the day we do, the rule of law will have left this country for good. The only thing that matters in a court of law is evidence and the only thing that matters in reopening a case is whether there is any fresh evidence. I am not yet aware that there is, but if there is, that matter will be fully taken into account by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that she has many friends and admirers in this House? [Interruption.] Does she also accept that there was a need to change our system of local government finance? But the poll tax has become friendless even among those who gain most because they do not recognise it as fair or as based upon people's ability to pay. Can we set ourselves upon a path on which ability to pay plays a bigger part than where one happens to live, fortunately or unfortunately?

The Prime Minister: First, ability to pay is taken care of by the most generous community charge rebates this country has ever known. Every penny of those rebates is taken care of by the taxpayer. Secondly, the majority of expenditure of local authorities is met not by the community charge payer, but by the taxpayer. The taxpayer is part of a progressive system of tax under which, of course, the rich pay far more than the poor. Those are two facts. I can think of nothing more unfair than a system of rating that ensured that half the people who voted for local authorities did not pay a penny piece.

Nuclear Trigger Devices (Iraq)

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about Government action with regard to Iraq following the seizure of nuclear detonators at Heathrow airport.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The House will wish to congratulate the Customs and Excise on its successful operation yesterday to stop the illegal export of nuclear material to Iraq. This was an effective demonstration of our commitment to carrying out our responsibilities to stop proliferation and of co-operation between the British and United States authorities.
Three people have been charged with offences under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989. The House will understand that I am not able to speculate on the details of the matter which are now sub judice. The question goes wider than law enforcement here and no doubt that is why the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) tabled it.
There are two international instruments which are relevant. Under the non-proliferation treaty, nuclear suppliers undertake not to transfer nuclear devices or technology and the other parties undertake not to receive them. All exports of nuclear material by suppliers who are states parties to the NPT including Iraq, are subject to safeguards administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The second instrument is the missile technology control regime which was established in 1987 by the summit 7 countries. The MTCR is intended to prevent the spread of technology that could be used to develop nuclear-capable missiles. Both instruments are important.
In Geneva, we are urgently consulting other parties in the western group to the NPT in order to find ways in which to minimise the risk of evasion of the treaty. We are in the forefront of those working to expand the membership of the MTCR. We shall urge our European Community partners and other Governments to join the MTCR without delay. The Soviet Union has similar controls that apply to the export of missile technology and we hope that it too will adhere to the MTCR guidelines.
Iraq is not the only power in the middle east with nuclear ambitions. This episode underlines starkly the dangers for the whole world from the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It shows that vigilance pays off. It also points to the vital need to solve by negotiation the wider conflicts in the middle east that undoubtedly acts as a spur to the proliferation of weapons in that region.

Mr. Kaufman: May I, on behalf of the Labour party, congratulate Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the United States authorities on the brilliant success of their operation? The whole world owes them a debt, for what we have seen is the prevention of a crime that would have menaced world security. However, I must say to the right hon. Gentleman, in the light of his response to my question, that the action that he has announced does not bear comparison with the efficiency and determination of the authorities that detected and defeated the nuclear smuggling ring.
There are a number of questions to which the House requires an answer. Why did the right hon. Gentleman's Foreign Office spokesman last night describe the seizure of the detonators as only a
criminal matter which need have no bearing on our relationship with Iraq"?
Is not that a culpably complacent reaction? If our relationship with Iraq is not affected, why did the Foreign Office call in the Iraqi ambassador? Is it a matter of no concern to us that a regime such as that of Iraq has got so far along the road to building a nuclear weapon? If the seizure has no bearing on our relationship with Iraq, why was an Iraqi national arrested on the point of boarding a plane for Baghdad?
If, as the right hon. Gentleman's spokesman said, this is only a criminal matter, why was the decision made by his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to deport a man on grounds which were:
reasons of national security and … other reasons of a political nature connected with attempted breaches of legislation governing the export of strategic goods from the United Kingdom"?
Why was a decision made to deport the man at all, especially at a time when two British subjects are being held in wrongful imprisonment in Iraq? Why has the man not been held, why is he not to be charged and why has he been sent home to safety and no doubt applause? Given that the whole Iraqi operation was clearly inspired at the highest level in Baghdad, can the Minister say whether the Iraqi embassy in London has been involved? Should the Iraqi ambassador be allowed to remain in London? After the murder of Mr. Bazoft, Opposition Members called for the expulsion of the Iraqi ambassador. Is not such action more appropriate than ever now?
If there is concern about possible Iraqi reprisals against British nationals in Iraq, will the Government now advise British nationals to leave that country in the interests of their own safety? Will the Government now place a ban on all technological exports to Iraq that could have any connection with nuclear or any other armaments? Will the Government reconsider their attitude towards export credits for Iraq? As Iraq is now clearly in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to which it is an adherent and to which the United Kingdom is one of the principal signatory parties, will the Government now call for the International Atomic Energy Agency to use its powers under article 3 of the non-proliferation treaty to go to Iraq and carry out an inspection, as it has the right to do under the treaty?
Will the Government urgently consult our European partners and the United States on concerted action? As the Iraqi action is clearly a threat to world peace, will the Government raise the issue without delay at the United Nations Security Council? The Government must take action with the utmost urgency, because the maintenance of international stability and the threat to peace make this an issue of paramount importance.

Mr. Hurd: This is a deeply important matter; I do not dissent from that. It is a criminal matter, and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was right not to press me on that aspect of it.
The Iraqi ambassador was called in so that we could explain our concern, the steps that were being taken and the reasons for them. Which charges were brought is not a matter for me. My right hon. and learned Friend decided to deport Mr. Latif because his continued presence here


was considered to be against the public interest. That is a perfectly normal procedure with which the House is familiar.
The right hon. Member for Gorton mentioned the stance of his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) after Mr. Bazoft's death, but he did not do so wholly accurately. I believe that he was in Sweden at the time. As we did then, we have considered the presence of the Iraqi ambassador and our diplomatic relations with Iraq. There is a considerable risk of damage in breaking off diplomatic relations, with no actual advantage. I do not want to get into the position that we not only leave our citizens, including our two prisoners which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, without protection, but do not have an embassy in the middle east between the Khyber pass and the Mediterranean. We have two empty embassies in two important middle eastern countries, and I do not want to add to that number unless there is a clear advantage in doing so. The right hon. Gentleman has not urged that advantage.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that we do not supply arms to Iraq, and I am glad of the opportunity to make that clear. We covered the issue of exports during our previous exchanges. Exports of nuclear technology and arms are covered by the restrictions I mentioned. It is clear from yesterday's events that those are effectively policed, and will continue to be.
The right hon. Gentleman urged me to consult our partners and allies, which is absolutely right. I have told the House that we are doing so. I do not exclude action in the Security Council, but I am not, at present, clear whether it would he profitable or lead anywhere. What are important are the two instruments I mentioned—the two international regimes—which are not perfect but offer the best hope of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the missiles which could carry them. We are right to concentrate our international effort in following up this serious event by trying to sharpen and improve the effectiveness of those two regimes, which are designed for that purpose.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the coup effected by the Customs and Excise in London, which the whole world will applaud. However, there are many participants in this unsavoury act who should be brought to account. It is worrying that West Germany, China, France and the United States are involved. Will he consider extending the COCOM net, which already exists for some of those countries, to control the exports of such vital equipment to unfriendly territories, and the need to ensure that the world co-ordinates its efforts to stop the proliferation, rather than rely on existing treaties which simply do not work.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is on exactly the right tack. Appended to the NPT is the Zangger list of products. That is one instrument, the other is the missile control arrangement, which I described. We are anxious not only that the original summit seven members should belong to that, but that all our EC partners, and other countries, should join it so that that control becomes more effective. I entirely agree with that, and we shall continue down exactly that path.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to the missile control

technology regime and the non-proliferation treaty. Does he agree that the effectiveness of both those regimes will always depend not only on the good faith of their signatories, but on the policing available to ensure that they are followed? Having regard to the position in the middle east, and the continuing unrest there, does he accept that it is time for the launching of a substantial political initiative, of which the Government should form part?

Mr. Hurd: There are different middle east disputes. There is the Iran-Iraq war, on which I am in close touch with the secretary-general, who carries the peace-making banner, and there is the Arab-Israeli dispute, which we have often discussed, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows our stance on that. To answer the hon. and learned Gentleman, and to pick up a point made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) which I did not answer, I can tell him that the Iraqis have a nuclear research establishment based on a French-supplied reactor which was inspected under the IAEA procedures in April 1989.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most worrying aspect of the affair is that security arrangements have been so sloppy that people such as the Iraqis could get their hands on such bits of equipment? Surely the most urgent thing of all is to ensure that it cannot happen again.

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend has been in the business long enough to know that such questions arise when one has a success. If the Customs had not been sucessful, the question would not have arisen. The episode shows that there is vigilance and effective co-operation. The shipment was prevented, but that is not a reason for complacency, rather for doing what we have proposed to do, which is to draw more and more people into more and more effective arrangements.

Mr. Peter Shore: As the Foreign Secretary said, this is a disturbing incident. What does the attempted export of the nuclear triggers tell us about the advance of the Iraqis towards producing a nuclear device of their own? Can he assure the House that he will give a full report of our findings and exploration into the matter to the IAEA in Vienna so that it can seriously consider taking much more effective action than seemed to be forthcoming having listened to the complacent interview on the BBC at 1 o'clock with the representative of the Vienna authority?

Mr. Hurd: I had better obtain a transcript of that interview. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The specification of the material confiscated yesterday suggests that the capacitors were intended for use in the trigger mechanism for a nuclear warhead, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it does not follow that all the other pieces are in place. No such deduction can be drawn, but that is not a reason for complacency.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Is my right hon. Friend concerned about the fact that, if any group of terrorists seeks illegally to export such nuclear devices, they can apparently be brought to justice only under a somewhat obscure statutory instrument, the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, which carries the maximum


penalty of a £1,000 fine or a two-year sentence of imprisonment? Is that an adequate deterrent to those seeking to blow up the entire middle east?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend will not expect me to trespass by commenting on the case or what may follow, but I note his point.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that if Iraq, with its dangerous regime, were to obtain nuclear potential, it would present a menace to peace? Does he recall that on a previous occasion others who were concerned about that took practical and effective action which was condemned in the House, I believe wrongly? Is he prepared to say what Her Majesty's Government and their allies will do to prevent the need for such action again?

Mr. Hurd: We shall continue to take the action that was taken yesterday. That is the most effective way of ensuring that proliferation does not take place. I would be disturbed if any state proliferated in that way, particularly if it was in an area of a good deal of tension and long-standing disputes. The first thing to do—I am not just talking about the middle east—is to persuade as many countries as possible to join the NPT so that they are subjected to inspection. But that in itself is not enough, as this incident shows, and that is why we need to strengthen the regime and make it more effective.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is not the excellent operation yesterday evidence that the best way of controlling international terrorism is by international co-operation? Will my right hon. Friend now ask the Foreign Office to update its previously held view that there is no evidence that Iraq is developing a nuclear capability?

Mr. Hurd: I am not sure about that previously expressed view. We keep a pretty wary eye on threats of proliferation in the middle east and elsewhere. It may prove to be a rather healthy reminder that, as one threat to our security diminishes—the Soviet threat with which we have lived most familiarily—there are other perhaps more sinister threats. We have to be equally vigilant and prepared to deal with them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have business questions today and an important debate that has to end at 7 o'clock, so I shall allow two more questions from either side and then I am afraid we must move on.

Mr. George Galloway: While no one in their right mind wants any new countries to acquire nuclear weapons, is the Secretary of State aware of the offence that is felt in the Arab and Islamic world at the assumptions which seem to lie behind such a hue and cry—that it is all right for some countries such as South Africa, Israel and ourselves to have nuclear weapons, but it is somehow fundamentally wrong for Arab countries and other Muslim countries such as Pakistan to have them? Will the Secretary of State amplify the point that he correctly made in his earlier remarks—that Iraq is not the only country in the middle east seeking a nuclear capacity

and, thanks to Mr. Vanunu—we should not forget his incarceration—we now know that Israel has a battery of nuclear weapons pointed at countries such as Iraq?

Mr. Hurd: The non-proliferation treaty distinguishes between those who were nuclear powers at the time and the remainder. That is the basis on which 139 countries have adhered to the treaty. It is not a distinction between Arabs and other non-nuclear powers; it is a distinction between the original nuclear powers and the remainder. I draw that distinction. The hon. Gentleman mentioned South Africa. I hope that all the countries of southern Africa will sign and adhere to the NPT.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: May I commend my right hon. Friend for resisting the calls to break diplomatic relations? Are not our troublesome relations with Iraq just where we need diplomatic expertise? Is not the main point to be learned from yesterday's episode that in recent years the arms race has been on the increase in the middle east while the peace process has been on the decrease there?

Mr. Hurd: The peace processes—my hon. Friend knows that we are talking about more than one dispute—are extremely important. There is no doubt that the existence of the Iran-Iraq war—there is a truce and there is no fighting, but there is no formal end to the war—acts as a spur to some of those activities. I agree that we all have a responsibility for urging forward the peace processes. At the same time, we also have a responsibility in that case for preventing the flow of arms and, in all cases, for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Mr. David Young: Is not it true that Israel and Iraq either have or are about to have nuclear weapons and that the history of both those countries has shown that they will not hesitate to use a pre-emptive strike if it suits their purposes? Is the Foreign Secretary content with that situation, which may mean war, and does he anticipate its prevention?

Mr. Hurd: That is the oldest and I think the emptiest argument in the world. Because one country may have thought of that argument, it takes actions which produce exactly the same feelings among its neighbours. The hon. Gentleman will agree that the only sane answer is that we have treaties in place which may not be perfect and we should work with our friends and allies who see the dangers to make them more effective. The success yesterday showed that they are effective, but we cannot be satisfied, because the incident also showed the continuing need and the continuing danger.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is equally unacceptable for Israel to have nuclear weapons as it would be for Iraq to have them? Will he confirm that the Government have been as assiduous in preventing the flow of nuclear munitions, or parts for them, to Israel as they would be to other countries?

Mr. Hurd: I have tried not to get drawn into the preferences of right hon. and hon. Members for different states. There is an occasion for doing that, but today is not it. We are talking about a number of non-nuclear states in an area continuously full of tension and bitterness. In my answers, I think that I have covered what we think is the right remedy.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunninham: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

The Lard President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 APRIL—Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embrylogy Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 3 Aartn.—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Social Security Bill (2nd Allotted day).
Motion relating to the National Health Senices (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Amendment) Regulations
WEDNEstiav 4 April—Consideration of any Lords amendments that may be received to the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
THURSDAY 5 April—Adjournment debates.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that the business for the first week after the Easter Adjournment will be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 18 Anat—Second Reading of the Courts and Legal Services Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 19 April—Second Reading of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill.
FRIDAY 20 April—Private Members' Bills.
It may be for the convenience of hon. Members to know how I propose that the House should handle the debates on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I should make it plain that I put forward these proposals only after having consulted widely in all parts of the House.
I should like to express my thanks to those hon. Members who have been willing to help me, in particular to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr.Cunningham).
The Bill is an important part of the legislative programme that the Government have brought before the House In bringing the Bill forward, the Government are responding to developments in human fertilisation and embryology, and their practical consequences.
The key issue at the heart of the Bill's provision is whether certain infertility treatments and research on human embryos should be permitted and brought within a new regulatory regime. In addition, 1 am advised that amendments on the medical termination of pregnancy would be within the scope of the Bill.
These are matters on which there is strong personal feeling, on both sides of the argument, and on which there has been wide public debate. They are matters on which the public have a right to expect the House to reach a clear view, but, equally clearly, there are issues on which the House should reach its conclusions on a free vote, on both sides of the House, as Government and Opposition speakers have made clear on previous occasions.
Against that background. the Government believe it right to do all we can to facilitate the House's consideration of those complex issues. I therefore propose to take certain procedural steps to provide for a structured and orderly debate of the whole of the Bill. Later today, I shall table a motion under Standing Order No. 61(3) to provide for the major issues of conscience on embryology research and on abortion, if and in so far as any amendments are tabled on that subject, to be debated in a

Committee of the whole House before the remainder of the Bill is debated in Standing Committee, and a timetable motion covering the Committee and subsequent stages of the Bill. The House will be given an opportunity to consider the motions immediately after Second Reading on 2 April.
I hope that the House will welcome those arrangements, which are entirely intended to enable it to reach dear and orderly conclusions on the important issues, within the scope of the Bill.

Dr. Cunningham: I first thank the Leader of the House for his careful and important statement on how we should deal with the controversial issues in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I personally thank him for the care and time he has taken to consult the Opposition about those matters and I hope that whatever the views of individual Members on the particular issues, his proposals will receive a wide welcome, which they deserve. I confirm what he and the House already know: speaking for the Labour party, there will be a free vote on these matters.
I also thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the week after the Easter recess as well as for next week. Can he tell us when the Government will be publishing the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill?
Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the survey published today by the BBC of the financial circumstances of the 214 district health authorities? Is be aware that the survey shows that 42 per cent. of all district health authorities are facing debts; that 24 per cent. of them say that, as a consequence of their indebtedness, they are having to reduce patient care; and that 57 per cent. say that their financial circumstances are worse now than when the Government introduced their new proposals for financing the Health Service?
As Government legislation now in the House of Lord's makes it clear that, after 31 March next year, no district heath authority can lawfully operate with a financial deficit, is not this matter now urgent and should not the House hear as soon as possible, preferably in an oral statement next week from the Secretary of State for Health, exactly what the Government intend to do for the finances of the Health Service between now and 31 March next year to avoid an impending catastrophe in reductions in patient care across the country? I urge the Leader of the House to provide time for us to discuss that most critical of matters.
There are about 10 outstanding orders on the poll tat to come before the House for debate This week we have again seen one of the most callous anomalies of all in the poll tax—the position of student nurses, who qualify for no rebate compared with that of apprentices in the armed services earning similar amounts who do qualify for rebates. I draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the editorial in The Times today, which is a damning indictment of the whole barmy idea of introducing a poll tax in Britain—

Mr, Tony Marlow: It does nor say much about the roof tax, does it

Dr. Cunningham: If I may reply to the hon. Gentleman's sedentary intervention, The Tunes said that property taxes should be reintroduced. The hon. Gentleman got it absolutely and comprehensively wrong


Given the damning comments from all quarters about the poll tax, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate after the Easter recess, and preferably, introduce measures to get rid of the whole ludicrous idea?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Let me deal with the last point first. There have been a number of opportunities lately to discuss orders in connection with the community charge. There will be an opportunity to do so again later today. The question of another debate on the subject is best left for handling through the usual channels.
The hon. Gentleman did not, of course, disclose that the majority of health authorities are proving able to manage their budgets within the resources available; that must, in the end, be an essential feature of National Health Service management. Even if the resources were to be doubled, and whatever the resources available to health authorities for a given period, a system of management needs to be put into place for managing them within those resources.
One of the purposes of the Health Service reforms is to enhance the quality of management so that the resources that are available, which will and must be finite under any Government under the sun, are managed so as to avoid end of the year problems of that kind. That is the object of the reforms and the hon. Gentleman's analysis was wholly ill founded and astonishing.

Dr. Cunningham: It was the analysis of the BBC.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The fact that it was the BBC's analysis does not make it any more commendable.
The British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill will be published next week and will therefore be available some time ahead of the debate that will take place in the week following the Easter recess. Finally, I was grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about the arrangements that I propose for discussing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: When will the House have an opportunity to debate the proposals for the change in the regulations relating to housing allowance for police officers so that it can deliver its verdict on what most people would consider to be a breach of faith with the police?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am of course aware of the interest on both sides of the House in those matters. However, the timing of a debate on the police regulations must be left to discussions between the usual channels.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When the Leader of the House has dinner here in the House of Commons in the evening and he is sitting at his table being served by staff in the Refreshment Department, does he ever stop to wonder how they manage to live on little more than £100 a week? What does he think about that?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have one thought in that context: I am reminded of the tenacity with which the hon. Gentleman pursues that matter on every occasion—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Make us pay more for our meals.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a second, I will answer him. Of course the matter can be considered by the House of Commons Commission, as it will be in so far as the points that the hon. Gentleman has advanced should be considered.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share the growing anxiety in this country about the state of the British press? Is he aware that hardly a day goes by without the announcement of a settlement for some unfounded libel and never a day passes without the invasion of the privacy of people who in no sense are in public life? Does he agree that the balance to be struck between the freedom of the press and the rights of the individual is a vital constitutional issue? If he does agree, will he provide time for a debate on the matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am aware that that is a topic of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and it has been the subject of debate before, although perhaps not this year. My hon. Friend will have the opportunity to raise it in a debate on the Adjournment. I have no plans for arranging a debate on the subject.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to study early-day motion 736, signed by hon. Members from all parties, about the entitlement of fishermen to unemployment benefit?
[That this House views with concern the effects on share fishermen and fishing crews of new regulations, introduced on 10th December 1989, covering benefit payments, which establishes a £43 earnings limit in a seven day benefit week; regrets that the new rules were introduced without consultation with the industry, and despite the existence of a 42-year-old agreement that higher national insurance contributions would be paid by share fishermen on the understanding that they would be able to claim unemployment benefit for the days they cannot go to sea; and calls upon the Government, who have now imposed a compulsory lay-up scheme with the intention of reducing catching effort, to amend the Department of Social Security regulations to allow fishermen to claim benefit payments when they are prevented from going to sea.]
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is disgraceful for the Government to breach a 42-year-old agreement at precisely the time when they are preventing fishermen from going to sea? Is not it time for an early debate in Government time to discuss that and the other injustices being visited upon the Scottish fishing industry?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered a question bearing on the more general issues on that topic on Tuesday. On this matter, the Government are aware of the concerns of the fishing industry, and we are monitoring the effects of the changes to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Sir Anthony Grant: Although I appreciate that there was a short debate in the early hours of the morning a few days ago about the exchange rate mechanism, would it be possible to have a proper debate on that subject in the not-too-distant future so that we may consider how far the Madrid conditions have been satisifed and how far they are still relevant?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I certainly understand the interest that my hon. Friend expresses in that matter. There will be opportunities to discuss it in the course of our regular debates on Community affairs, but I will bear his points in mind.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that, at 1 o'clock this morning, many hon. Members on both sides of the House were deeply concerned that Ministers were still trotting out the same excuses that they have been trotting out for the past decade for not paying compensation to nuclear test veterans, and that they did after only a 45-minute debate? So that we can put the case properly and give justice to those ex-service men, such as is being given in the United States and in other countries, please may we have a full debate next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot respond to the right hon. Gentleman by acceding to his request. As he has said, that matter was debated last night and was the subject of a long answer from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security a day or two before. The arguments that were advanced on behalf of the Government still deserve to prevail.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Through the arrangements that he has announced for the Human Fertilsation and Embryology Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend must be aware that he has brought to an end years of wrangling and uncertainty on a difficult subject. Is he aware that that will have earned the gratitude not only of those of us in this place with strong feelings on the matter, but of many people in the country who have wanted to see that wrangling and uncertainty brought to an end, and, indeed, of many other hon. Members who do not have strong feelings on it, but who have been vexed for many years by the wrangling and pressures that have been involved?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for the generosity of what she has just said.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will the Leader of the House be good enough to ask the Minister for Health to investigate the functioning of the Tower Hamlets social services and housing committee, especially in relation to its arrangements for the care and financing in the community of severely disabled people, with special reference to the case of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that that is the direct responsibility of the Leader of the House. Is it a question about a debate, a statement or a question?

Ms. Gordon: Yes, I want a statement. I refer especially to the case of Corporal William Blackburn, who has been in the Queen Elizabeth military hospital in Woolwhich ready for discharge for the past 19 months. Will the Leader of the House please make a statement to the House next week?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot promise to make a statement about that, but I can undertake to bring the matter to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is the Government's statement about whether or not to charge-cap any local authority coming next week; and if not, why not?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give a precise answer to my hon. Friend's question, but I expect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be in a positon to make an announcement next week.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that last week I asked for a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office to be brought to the Dispatch Box this week to give a statement about the uprating of the ceiling for rate benefits in Northern Ireland in line with the uprating for the community charge here. Do I take it that silence gives consent and that we shall be able to read about it in the newspapers in the next few weeks?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should draw any particular conclusions from that. He knows that Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office were at the Dispatch Box earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time after the recess for a full debate on tourism? There has not been one for some considerable time, and the tourist industry, which is this country's largest earner of foreign currency, is in a state of crisis, partly because of the introduction of the uniform business rate and because of the elimination of any transitional arrangements for people who purchase new hotels.
I also refer my right hon. and learned Friend to the 100-day limit that has been introduced on bed-and breakfast accommodation, which exempts such accommodation from the uniform business rate. Finally, may I refer my right hon. and learned Friend to the fact that the standard spending assessments do not give any recognition to the expenditure on tourism that my local authority in Torbay spends every year, which amounts to about £1 million? Will my right hon. and learned Friend please find the time for a debate after the recess?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend has understandably drawn attention to certain matters affecting the tourist industry, which is of importance in his constituency. I shall bring those matters to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I cannot promise to offer a debate.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I understand that, in the light of the programme on the Birmingham Six last night, the Home Secretary issued a press statement. Many of us thought that, before he did that, he should have come to the House to answer questions about what happened. In view of that and of many of the allegations made in that programme-especially the allegation that the police have had the names of those involved for no less than 15 years-does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary should come to the House as soon as possible—certainly during next week—to say what he thinks and to allow us to question hire about that whole business, which is now part and parcel of the thinking of all our people?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The fact that one of the relevant documents referred to in that programme has been in the


possession of the police and other authorities for some time tends to support the view that the programme did not contain a great deal of new material. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said today that, as always, he is willing to look at fresh evidence. That is the appropriate course in respect of this matter.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, apparently, there are at present about 25,000 empty council properties in London—10,000 of them in just five Labour-controlled authority areas? Does he know that uncollected rents in five Labour-controlled authority areas amount to £58 million? Does he agree that there is a need for an urgent debate on local authority housing in London, so that the slur about "the plight of the homeless" may be fully exposed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend, as so often, has drawn attention to two important facts that underline the extent to which Labour-controlled authorities in London are failing to meet the needs of their populations in respect of housing.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House accept that his announcement about the guillotine on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is about the only guillotine announcement that will be widely welcomed on both sides of the House? Will he give the House credit? The public are fed up with our failure to come to a decision and with our appearing to mess around with an important issue.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the same time confirm that no guillotine will be imposed on the Education (Student Loans) Bill when it comes back from the House of Lords next week? Following the question from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), can he remove any doubt that there will be an early statement next week on any capping of councils? The system will come into operation next week, and councils need to know whether an upper limit will be fixed by the Government.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I have said clearly that I expect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement next week. We shall have to consider, as the days unfold, the most appropriate arrangements for dealing with student loans. I wish to express my gratitude for the hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the arrangements that I announced concerning the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.
I qualify my gratitude in one respect: I should have expected someone of the hon. Gentleman's enlightenment to recognise that the timetable motion that I propose is not in any sense a guillotine. It is being put in place as a result of very wide consultation, to enable the House to consider the matter sensibly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the word "guillotine" and accept the word "timetable", which is much more elegant and gentle.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that his decision to give special time for matters that are normally considered matters of conscience is due entirely to the fact that those debates will stem from amendments to

Government legislation—amendments that are in order and that there is no change whatever in long-standing Government policy never, ever, to allow extra time for private Members' Bills?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our position starts and finishes with the premise of which I am reminded by my right hon. Friend. In this context, the Government thought it right—certainly I thought it right—to make arrangements for issues that arise within the scope of this Bill to be considered in an orderly fashion.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House please make arrangements as soon as possible for a statement and debate on miscarriages of justice in this country? I refer in particular to the case of the Birmingham Six, whose innocence has been known for the past 15 years. These people have lost 15 years of their lives. They have been in prison for 15 years for a crime that they did not commit and could not have committed. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make sure that this debate takes place soon? Will he ensure that the Government do not delay on the inquiry by the Devon and Cornwall constabulary but, instead, refer the case rapidly to the Court of Appeal as the most speedy mechanism by which these men may be released, and the sense of injustice removed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have said already, it does not appear that any significant new matters were raised in the course of the recent programme. However, the position remains the same: my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is always willing to consider fresh evidence and, in the light of it, to decide whether any further procedural steps should be taken.

Mr. Cecil Franks: Bearing in mind an earlier question about the media, and also the widespread concern expressed in the House about the violence which has followed media-inspired and orchestrated demonstrations, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider an early debate on the issue? To help him to determine what to do, may I draw to his attention to two events in my constituency? First, last weekend a media-orchestrated and inspired demonstration broke into my constituency office during my advice bureau: it resulted in the police being called and a Labour councillor and the Labour party press secretary being arrested. Secondly, following an article on Monday calling for a demonstration outside the hotel where my constituency was to hold its annual general meeting tomorrow, the hotel has refused to give facilities for the meeting. There is a climate of fear in the constituency, deliberately orchestrated and inspired by the local media.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: While I cannot undertake to offer a debate on the particular matters raised by my hon. Friend, he is certainly right to draw attention to the need to avoid violence in the expression of opinion on any issue at any time, and to draw attention to the need for the media, like anybody else, not to provoke or incite violence on such occasions.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Can we have a debate on Wednesday on the illegal export of nuclear bomb triggers, instead of dealing with Lords amendments to the Education (Student Loans) Bill? Today we had only a private notice question on the nuclear bomb triggers; a


Government statement should have been volunteered. As the Leader of the House knows, the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty is very important and has suddenly leapt into prominence. We should be given time to debate it and to support the 137 non-nuclear nations who support the treaty. We want to strengthen it. We could discuss how the Government are sabotaging the treaty by being in breach of article 6 because of the development and purchase of 10 billion worth of Trident nuclear weapons. We could examine and expose the double standards of a nation and Government who want an increase in the capability to cause mass extermination but condemn other nations that want to follow suit.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The quality of the hon. Gentleman's argument in support of his case is such that it convinces me that his case does not deserve to prevail. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has dealt clearly today with the instant matters. It is also manifest from the success of the authorities in intercepting the equipment that Her Majesty's Government take their obligations in this respect very seriously.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Grave and valid concern has been felt in all parts of Northern Ireland by the callous call of Northern Ireland Conservatives for the imposition of the poll tax on the people of Northern Ireland. Can we have an urgent debate on the matter so that the representatives of all the constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland may have an opportunity to put forward the reasons why the tax should not be imposed on the hard-pressed people of Northern Ireland?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is in a position to advance in the House the case that he has just put forward. It would surely be sensible for Conservatives in Northern Ireland to have a comparable and expanding opportunity to do the same.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Further to the point raised by the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), does the Leader of the House recognise that the Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990 are causing a considerable drop in morale in the police forces of the United Kingdom? Can he be more specific about when he will find time for a debate on them? I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Government are not avoiding a debate, for which there is considerable support on both sides of the House, just because the Government are trying to avoid the discussion of thorny and embarrassing matters.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: While I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's judgment on the merits of the regulations, I have said that there is widespread interest in the matter among hon. Members on both sides of the House. The usual channels will be considering when a debate can conveniently be arranged.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Further to the questions posed by the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the innocence of the Birmingham Six was not demonstrated by an emotional and misleading television programme in which one of the most absurd propositions was that a conspiracy was conducted by police officers, solicitors,

barristers, judges and Ministers to ensure that a disgraceful miscarriage of justice was perpetrated against six innocent men?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. and learned Friend makes some important points in response to the programme., but he will agree that we do not have to accept trial by television as a means of reaching justice in this country. I assure him and the House that the Home Secretary will continue to consider fresh evidence that is presented on this matter in the proper way, as he has done heretofore.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The whole House will appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend's care in consulting widely on the Human Fertilisation and Embrology Bill. So that the House can come to a clear view, may we have votes on the subject at a reasonable hour, when the House is well attended, as it will be unwhipped business?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his general welcome for my proposals. We shall be seeking so to arrange matters that they are conducted in a reasonable way at not unreasonable times.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate so that we may discuss the leaked memorandum from the chief solicitor of Barnet council admitting that, over a period of years, Barnet council has illegally discriminated in the rehousing of immigrants and is liable to prosecution under the Race Relations Act 1976?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a relatively unorthodox foundation for suggesting a debate. I do not immediately respond to it with enthusiasm.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on the situation in Hungary? It would seem that the Hungarian Communist party changed its name to the Socialist party to fight the recent elections. But only 10 per cent. of the population voted for that party, and presumably the other 90 per cent. could not tell the difference between socialism and communism. Does he agree that that would be an interesting subject for a debate?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend makes a penetrating observation about an interesting subject. I am not sure that it carries the matter far enough for me to arrange an early debate.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: When will the Leader of the House announce a debate about Harrods? Such a debate has been made more urgent by the disastrous and disgusting performance of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry yesterday before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry when he refused to answer any questions about why he did not recommend the disqualification of the two villains who are running one of the leading corner shops in Britain. Will he note that there is a demand for an urgent debate on both sides of the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Again, the way in which the hon. Gentleman advances that case is not very effective in persuading me to shift from my position. A debate on the matter would not be appropriate while the Select Committee is considering the subject.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate on the valuable work undertaken by the Audit Commission? Many hon. Members have campaigned, and welcome the decision by the Government, to deploy the Audit Commission in the National Health Service, as outlined in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. Many of us are also extremely impressed by some of the important reports produced by the Audit Commission.
I think particularly of the report "Care in the Community", which has been widely welcomed on both sides of the House, and the valuable work that it did in respect of the homeless and homelessness. Many other areas might benefit from the attentions of the Audit Commission. Could time be found to discuss the matter on the Floor of the House?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the tribute he paid to the work of the Audit Commission and to the way in which its area of operations has been effectively enlarged. That adds force to the case for its being considered on the Floor of the House, but I cannot give him any promise in that respect.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the answer that he gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) about a debate on people in council houses who cannot pay their rent? Will he extend such a debate to a full debate on the issue of poverty, so that some of us on this side can explain to Conservative Members what causes poverty, why people cannot pay their rents, why some people—not all—are suffering more than they have ever suffered in their lives, especially those in a state of poverty who are about to face poll tax demands which they cannot possibly pay? Is it not time that we had a full-scale debate on poverty so that there can be some glimmer of understanding among Conservative Members of why people are in poverty?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My recollection is that, on a Supply day not many months ago, there was a debate on a subject similar to that identified by the hon. Gentleman. He may have the opportunity to play his part in selecting other Supply days for that purpose. I hope that my hon. Friends will make use of the occasion to identify the extent to which poverty has diminished as a result of the successful operation of the Government's economic policies in raising average living standards throughout the country.

Mr. John Marshall: May we have an early debate on the policies of Barnet council, in view of the interest in them of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), so that I can point out that our community charge is two thirds that of Brent, that every day 2,000 children come from Brent to be educated in Barnet and that Barnet does not have the rent arrears of Brent or the stock of empty houses of many London Labour councils?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In the absence of a debate, my hon. Friend has made good use of the opportunity just afforded to him.

Mr. Dick Douglas: It would be helpful if the Leader of the House could tell us when the Secretary of State for Scotland will respond to the situation that confronts us on the capital offset for the poll

tax. May I crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and raise with the Leader of the House a matter that I have raised with you connected with the Select Committee on Defence and the interest of the Chairman of the Committee in SGL? Next week the Committee will spend about £15,000 of taxpayers' money.
The Leader of the House should be aware that yesterday the Select Committee passed a motion to the Select Committee on Members' Interests expressing anxiety that there might be a conflict of interests created by the information received by members of the Committee in connection with their work and which they gain from trips abroad.

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Douglas: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but it is a matter for the whole House. Witnesses coming before a Select Committee of the House should have the absolute assurance that the information that they give will be used for the purposes of the Committee and of the House and for no other purpose. There is a conflict of interest between the offices that the Chairman of the Committee holds—[Interruption.] I have given him notice that I intended to raise the matter and the position that he holds.
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I would welcome the guidance of the House. I am withholding my attendance from that Committee. If I am wrong that witnesses should have that assurance, the House should put down a motion saying, "Dick Douglas is wrong." I believe that I am not wrong, and I await the decision of the House on the matter.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the precision of the request with which the hon. Gentleman closed his observations represents a proposition that I could not be expected to table in the present or any other circumstances. On the underlying substance of the matter, it is the subject of representations between the two relevant Select Committees—the Defence Committee and the Select Committee on Members' Interests. It is best that it is handled in that way, by the two Committees considering it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Members who are on their feet but I ask them not to repeat questions that have been asked before, in view of the heavy business before us.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week and give us a detailed list of the number of Bills that have been passed, but which have not been put fully into practice? I raise that matter in particular because he will recall that he was one of the Ministers who piloted through the Industrial Relations Bill. It became an Act of Parliament, but then the Government put it on the back boiler and never used it. I suggest that it would not be a bad idea if they repeated that practice with the poll tax.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's insight is uncharacteristically inaccurate in several respects. The Industrial Relations Bill would have had a flourishing and effective life had it not been for the temporary misfortune of the country in electing a Labour Government in March 1974. That Government made the mistake of repealing it,


but the present Government have put in place provisions designed to achieve similar purposes, and they have done so to good effect.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House consider early-day motion 539, which has been signed by 49 Members and which asks him specifically to separate the issues of human fertilisation and embryology from the emotive issue of abortion?
[That this House believes the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has crucial implications for the future of in vitro fertilisation techniques, diagnosis and treatment of serious congenital disease, advance in knowledge of the causes and treatment of serious congenital disease, advance in knowledge of the causes and treatments for infertility, miscarriage and contraception; further believes that this important Bill deserves serious and detailed consideration on its own merits; therefore declares its intention to resist efforts of anti-abortion hon. Members to introduce the separate and controversial issue of abortion into this Bill, in particular by the moving of amendments to lower the abortion time limit below 20 weeks as the medical and ethical arguments about late term abortions are quite different from those surrounding the treatment of embryos in the 14 days after fertilisation, and believes that this essential debate on embryo research must not be allowed to be distorted and overshadowed by the inevitably heightened emotion which would follow from the introduction of abortion amendments.]
Surely it would have been more appropriate to accept that amendment when my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) introduced her ten-minute Bill, Medical Services for Women, which specifically mentioned abortion. Is not it a shame that the House has allowed a Bill that will give great happiness to many infertile couples to be hijacked by people for the wrong reasons?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am disappointed that the hon. Lady does not share the general view that the arrangements we have in mind are best calculated to handle those complicated issues. It is not for the Government alone to determine the scope of the debate on embryo research, which cannot be separated from the moral issues that underline the abortion question. It will be for Parliament to decide the right approach to those questions on the basis of careful arrangements that commend themselves to people in most parts of the House.

Mr. Roy Hughes: The Leader of the House is a good Welshman and he will be aware that the Severn crossing is our main access point. Does he appreciate that there is speculation now that the contract for the second crossing will be awarded to a consortium with major French interests, which will take over the existing bridge and all that that entails? May we have an early debate on this vital matter? Meanwhile will he use his good offices to ensure that a solution is found that will at least maintain the tolls on both crossings at their current prices in real terms?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would be very imprudent were I to respond affirmatively to the last question posed by the hon. Gentleman.
No decision has yet been taken about the second crossing provisions, but when that decision is reached, the

House will be informed about it. That decision will be reached after a proper assessment of the value and merits of the alternatives.

Mr. Max Madden: May I again ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware of the growing public concern about Members and financial interests, including the Chairmen of Select Committees? I echo the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and urge the Leader of the House to do everything possible to enable the Select Committee on Members' Interests thoroughly to investigate the complaints that have been referred to it.
That can be done only if the backlog of inquiries facing that Committee are dealt with. I suggest that that Select Committee establishes a number of Sub-Committees so that thorough and prompt inquiries are made into the complaints facing it. As long as the matter drags on, no recommendations are made and the House takes no decision on such matters, public concern will continue and is bound to escalate.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that there is significant interest in the question of Members' interests, but there must be a limit to my capacity or anyone else's to mobilise parliamentary resources out of thin air. The Select Committee on Members' Interests is seized of all the questions. A few weeks ago, in the light of the debate on the affairs of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), some extra items were added to the agenda of that Select Committee. The Chairman of the Committee and his colleagues are addressing themselves to the issues as expeditiously as they can. The House has proper procedures for such matters, and they are being followed.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the important debate on Hong Kong will not cover the conditions under which Vietnamese boat people are still living there? Is he aware that, in response to my complaint about the filthy, insanitary conditions in the place, I received a reply from the Hong Kong authorities saying that the reason was not that the drains were open, but that people put excrement into them? Can we please have a debate on that, as those conditions are unworthy of us? Will the Leader of the House be kind enough to refer the matter to the Home Secretary, or to someone who can ensure that the people at least have reasonable conditions rather than conditions of which this country should be ashamed?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. and learned Gentleman offers us a glimpse into the obvious when he says that those matters will be outside the scope of the debate on the Hong Kong legislation. He will appreciate that everyone who has addressed the question is bound to be deeply concerned about the conditions in the Hong Kong camps: that is the very reason why the Government are following a policy designed to diminish the numbers forced to face those conditions, and to improve them as far as possible. The real improvement is to be found through reducing the numbers that are obliged to stay there.

Mr. John McFall: The Leader of i he House will be aware that on 11 October last year the Secretary of State for Scotland announced a transitional relief scheme for householders in Scotland who would be


penalised by having to pay £3 per week extra during the transition between domestic rates and the poll tax. To date, no regulations have been made on that.
We are all aware of the speed with which the Secretary of State for Scotland arrived at the door of No. 10 after the foul-up in the Budget. Will the Leader of the House show the same speed? Will he grab his right hon. and learned Friend by the scruff of the neck to make him come here and lay the regulations before the House, so that the people of Scotland receive the just entitlement for which they have waited too long?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not aware of the particular deficiency to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He himself provided an eloquent tribute to the speed with which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland does his work, and I am sure that he will continue to do so.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: The Leader of the House is probably aware that, on Tuesday this week, I presented a ten-minute Bill containing the proposition that the Abortion Act 1967 should be amended to make the law of England and Wales the same as that in Scotland, where there is no upper time limit. The House gave its unanimous consent to a further debate of that proposition.
May I ask the Leader of the House for a procedural ruling on how the House, which already has a proposition before it on abortion, can make separate arrangements to proceed against another Bill? Is it not the case that the proposition that was passed unanimously on Tuesday is now the relevant Bill before Parliament?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I listened to the eloquent observations by the hon. Lady in support of her Bill, which covered a wide range of matters, including that one. The House was kind enough not to oppose its introduction; however, I do not think that she should assume that it will have as optimistic a prospect of making headway as the Bill that we will be debating on Monday.

Ms. Primarolo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Is the Leader of the House aware that, according to Greenpeace, the United States has today set—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Greenpeace does not organise debates here.

Mr. Cohen: I am asking for a debate on an important matter. According to Greenpeace, the United States has today set a 1,000 yd exclusion zone around its King's Bay submarine base, and the USS Tennessee, armed with Trident D5 missiles, is about to go on operational patrol —the first operational patrol with Trident missiles. Can we have an urgent debate on that huge and dangerous expansion in the world's nuclear arsenal?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not immediately persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's case.

Points of Order

Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to defend the interests of hon. Members—I hasten to add that I was not one of them—who are lucky enough on either Tuesdays or Thursdays to draw a question for Question Time between eight and 15 minutes past 3 o'clock? In the past 12 months, it has been increasingly difficult to hear anything that is said at that time. That is a relatively new feature. The only other time that I can remember its happening was during the Falklands war, when there was a good reason for the House to concentrate on one issue. It is not fair to the hon. Members concerned. If the House does not want to have questions beyond 3.8 pm, we should start Prime Minister's questions then.

Several Hon. Members: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one thing at a time. I agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) if he is saying that, in the few minutes before the Prime Minister gets up, there is a growing tendency for private discussions on both sides of the House. I frequently draw attention to that fact.
While I am on the subject of Prime Minister's questions, I should like to say that the quality of the questions asked of the Prime Minister makes a difference to the reaction of the House. We saw an example of that this afternoon when the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) asked a question that was heard in complete silence.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we do something about the amplification system? It was not possible to hear anything today. It may have something to do with the cameras and the BBC, but we really must be able to hear what is said.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it on the same matter—the microphones?

Mr. Madden: Yes, Mr. Speaker. You have been asked on a number of occasions to try to do something to help hon. Members to hear the proceedings. May I ask why, over the past week, the microphone nearest to me has been installed? It is smaller than all the others. I wonder if a bit has dropped off it, whether it is an experiment or whether it is a direct line to MI5.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is the latter. [Interruption.] Order. This is a serious matter. We are in an experimental period for television. The answer to the hon. Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) is that we are also experimenting with microphones that were not originally designed for television. They need a certain amount of adjustment, and that is being carried out.
Whether hon. Members can be heard in the Chamber is entirely up to the House. Let me repeat that the quality of questions that are asked determines the reaction that they receive.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Further to that point of order on microphones, Mr. Speaker. The impact of television on the microphonic equipment has been insignificant. The microphones are the same as those that have served the House for a long time, although modest changes have been made to take account of the positioning of people in relation to the Dispatch Box.
The real problem may be thought to be that they are rather ancient, but, even if they were to be replaced by a modern system, it would be difficult to design a microphone that can at one and the same time pick up the voice of the hon. Member who has the Floor of the House, speaking at a modest level, and exclude hubbub from the rest of the House. That balance is extremely difficult to achieve, but it is under continuous consideration by the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Skinner, if it is helpful.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Yes, it is, Mr. Speaker. We had the same problem a few years ago, before television came in. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the last leader of the Liberal party, as it was then called, said that he could not be heard. A separate microphone was installed for him alone because he had such a wee small voice. To put the balance right, another microphone was placed on the Tory side of the Chamber for the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—for when he crossed the Floor.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can have a debate on microphones this afternoon. We have important—

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. We have a very important debate on the community charge in the form of two prayers. [Interruption.] Order. I am sure that all the points of order are serious, but hon. Members who are not interested in taking part in the debate on the community charge should bear in mind the fact that many of their colleagues are.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), Mr. Speaker. Will you tell the House what you think of the quality of the questions put by the Leader of the Opposition? Conservative Members feel that he never has an opportunity—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Fortunately, the Chair is never required to give an opinion about such matters.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am interested not in arguments about the quality of questions, but in the lights, which are having a bad effect on my eyes and probably on other hon. Members' eyes. When will something be done about the glare? I have to put my hand above my eyes like this to get

a view of the House. It is a serious matter, and sooner or later something must be done about controlling those lights.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that other hon. Members who want to ask questions on this matter should refer them to the Select Committee on Televising the Proceedings of the House, because I cannot answer them. They are properly matters for the Committee and should be drawn to its attention.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I have to pursue this matter, Mr. Speaker, because, unfortunately, the comments by the Leader of the House were technically incorrect. The reason we cannot hear in the House of Commons has nothing to do with the quality of the microphones. The reason is that, in order not to spoil the sound track going out with the television transmission, the speakers in the back of the Benches have been turned down. That is why we cannot hear the proceedings when there is a hubbub. Can we have a frank admission of that fact?

Mr. Speaker: Again, those matters should be raised with the Select Committee. When the microphones were turned up, there was so much noise from about 50 amplifiers that those speaking could not be heard.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I am beginning to get involved in a debate. I cannot take any more questions about televising.

Mr. James Couchman: You, Mr. Speaker, may have noted that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has moved himself closer to the microphone which he said had some sinister purpose. I believe that he thinks that good things come wrapped up in large parcels, and I have sympathy with him.

Mr. Speaker: I know. It might be helpful if this were the last word on the matter.

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No. I am constantly seeking to help the House on this matter, which is serious. It would help those concerned about noise if, when hon. Members spoke, they stood close to a microphone. They would not then need to speak so loudly.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Ms. Primarolo—on a separate point of order.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a separate point of order.
In reply to my question during business questions, the Leader of the House commented on the intentions of hon. Members in not opposing the Medical Services for Women Bill which I introduced. The Leader of the House could not have known all the intentions of every hon. Member, and his comment undermined the rights of Back Benchers to move ten-minute Bills and impugns motives which he cannot know exist. Therefore, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to


rule that the Leader of the House could not have known that and that the ten-minute Bill, unopposed, stands in its own right.

Mr. Speaker: The House gave the hon. Lady permission to bring in her Bill, which has yet to have a Second Reading.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I am taking no more points of order. Other hon. Members want to speak in the debate and I cannot answer any more questions about microphones.

Mr. Cryer: It is not about microphones.

Mr. Speaker: If it is not about microphones but a different matter I will hear it.

Mr. Cryer: Yes, a different matter. When information is sent out about the operations of the House, such as the guide to the Chamber, could the information be included that when we stand up we are not being deferential to the Prime Minister or anybody else? Many people outside believe that we are. However, we are trying to be called. The past few minutes, during which I have been trying to be called, and jumping up and down, illustrate the case very well.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Is it consistent that the Opposition parties should take part in last night's debate about allocation of time and then take time from today's debate with a vast number of questions to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House and bogus points of order?

Mr. Speaker: That is not very helpful, either.

Adjournment Motions

Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that on the motion for the Adjournment of the House on Thursday 5 April, up to 10 hon. Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will be held on Tuesday morning, and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Community Charge

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Community Charges (Deductions from Income Support) (No. 2) Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 545), dated 8th March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be annulled.
May I say how glad I am to be speaking from a microphone which is unlikely to be either decreased in size or moved.
The Opposition wish to pray against some of the poll tax benefit regulations. Those regulations implement what is fast proving the most detested tax introduced in this country for 600 years. In addition, the way in which the regulations have been handled shows that the Government are not only breaking down, but are hell-bent on a campaign of self-destruction.
I shall start with the Government's strongest card: the sweetener they threw into the Budget to spice up what would otherwise have been described as a wimpish Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly believes that doubling the upper capital limit for poll tax benefit will elicit instant gratitude and, no doubt, long-term political dividends. However, it has blown up in his face, not only because, as he had the grace to admit, he clean forgot about the existence of Scotland, but because he, as Chancellor—or was it the Secretary of State for Social Security—got his sums wrong. Far from being the great concession it was cracked up to be, it has turned out to be a huge political con.
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor claimed that 250,000 people would benefit. We now know that the true figure is about half that—only 130,000. He said that two thirds of those benefiting would be pensioners. But that is still less than 1 per cent. of all the pensioners who will have to pay the poll tax. He did not say that this much-touted concession still does not compensate for the tightening of the capital rules which the Government imposed two years ago. If the Government claim credit for having eased the capital rules, they must also accept censure for having introduced the initial capital rule two years ago which deprived 700,000 pensioner households from any entitlement to housing benefit or rate rebate.
It was only when my right hon. and learned Friends raised a huge political outcry about this matter that the former Secretary of State was forced to backtrack a few months later in May 1988. A total of 100,000 pensioners were then brought back into the benefit net. With this further concession the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Social Security will bring back another 100,000 pensioners into the entitlement net, but that still leaves 500,000 pensioners who were entitled to benefit before 1988 but are still left outside the benefit net. It is as though someone had robbed a bank, but then, under pressure, given back some of the swag. That is hardly an occasion for unqualified gratitude, more perhaps a case where humility, and perhaps an apology, from the Government are overdue.
It is not only that the numbers of the newly entitled will be distinctly modest, but much more: that most of them will find out when they claim that they will get little. Many will get nothing. As I said last night, that is because of the rule on tariff income. For every £250 in savings of more


than £3,000, people are deemed, however totally unrealistic it may be, to receive an income of £1 a week. That reduces their poll tax rebate by 15p a week.
Let me take as an example—not an extravagant example—the case of a single pensioner with a small occupational pension, which takes her £10 a week over her applicable amount, and who also has £15,500 in capital —just the sort of person whom the Government are trying to help. Because of her extra £10, £1·50 will be deducted from her poll tax benefit. The tariff income from her capital would come to £50, so another £7·50 would be deducted on top of the £1·50. Unless her poll tax was more than £611 a year—I think that I am right in saying that not a single local authority has that notorious distinction—the pretend income that is attributed to her would completely extinguish her entitlement to poll tax benefit.
I stress again that that is not, as the House can see, a far-fetched or exceptional case. The sheer modesty of what is being proposed is illustrated by the Government's estimate that it is worth only about £35 million a year, which works out at less than half of 1 per cent. of the total revenue that they will receive from the poll tax. After all the excitement and ballyhoo, with Conservative Members waving their Order Papers in delight at the Chancellor's announcement, the cold reality of minimal relief will disappoint and anger many pensioners whose much-aroused expectations are about to be dashed to the ground. It is surely irresponsible for the Government to boost hopes in that way and to encourage pensioners to fill out complex forms only to find that a zero or negligible rebate is calculated to offset their massive tax bills.
There are two ways out of the dilemma into which the Government have put themselves, but they have consciously refused to take either of them. The first is to raise the lower capital limit as well as the upper one. If the lower threshold at which deductions start were doubled to £6,000, the value of the concession would be greatly increased. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I tabled a new clause to that effect during yesterday's Report stage of the Social Security Bill. As hon. Members know perfectly well, the new clause was voted down by Tory Members by 307 votes to 204. That shows that Tory Back-Benchers are a great deal more concerned to prop up a Government who are on the ropes than to protect pensioners.
The other way out of the Government's self-inflicted dilemma would be to revert to the pre-1988 system so that the actual rate of interest was counted rather than the artificial tariff rate. It is absurd for the tariff income to assume a rate of return on savings of 20 per cent. There is a bitter irony in all this. The Tory Government introduced the system two years ago to cut expenditure on housing benefits and rate rebates and they are now impaled on a device of their own making which grossly undermines the value of the poll tax concession that they now claim they wish to make. Not only the people of Scotland, but all thrifty pensioners have been insulted by the Government's incompetent handling of the poll tax rebates.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend mentioned two ways to get rid of the problem, but there is a third way—to adopt the Labour party's policy and drop the tax altogether. I pray in aid a remarkable editorial in The Times today—a paper which supports the Tory party and the Prime Minister through and through—which canvasses the idea that the poll tax should be dropped and

a tax based on property and the ability to pay introduced in its place. When we have support from such strange quarters it means that the poll tax is almost friendless.

Mr. Meacher: That is the obvious solution, and it is the solution which the British people overwhelmingly want. However, we know that it will not happen because the iron lady, who cannot turn, has been committed for the past 15 years to the abolition of the rates and their replacement by something like the poll tax. It is her tax and as long as she is Prime Minister it will remain.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there had been a secret vote in the Cabinet on the poll tax, the majority would probably have been against any such proposal and, perhaps even now, a motion to repeal the poll tax would be carried? There can be no doubt that on a free vote in the House of Commons the poll tax would have been decisively rejected, as was urged by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who is putting forward his own case for the leadership.

Mr. Meacher: None of us knows with certainty the truth of the matter, but I have always assumed that only one member of the Cabinet is in favour of the poll tax. I doubt whether it has a single other taker. Conservative Members would like nothing more than to get rid of the poll tax, but the truth is that the poll tax will get rid of them.

Mr. Richard Tracey: We all accept reasonable protest, but will the hon. Gentleman repudiate those of his colleagues who are refusing to pay the community charge and so are breaking the law?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The regulations have nothing to do with that intervention.

Mr. Meacher: That is the sort of remark that we would expect from a former Minister for Sport.
I come now to what might accurately be called the Scottish embarrassment bonus or the "Rifkind" face-saver. It is increasingly clear that "we in Scotland" are becoming rather forgetful. It appears that on a recent visit "we in Scotland" failed to remember that the Scottish Labour party conference was taking place at the same time. One memory loss might constitute a significant offence, but two is decidedly careless.
The Chancellor has now admitted that he completely forgot about Scotland in the Budget and he will not be surprised if Scotland forgets about the Government when it comes to the next election. We shall be looking extremely carefully at the Secretary of State for Scotland's ex gratia scheme to see whether it guarantees full retrospection. A discretionary scheme of ex gratia payments is one thing, but a system of assured rights for all those entitled is another. We welcome the £4 million proposed in a humiliating Government climb-down, but we wish to be sure that Scotland receives a fair deal in exactly the same way as England and Wales.
Our central objection to the poll tax benefit regulations, on which we shall be calling for a vote tonight, relates to the Government's proposal to deduct income support from those on the poverty line if they fail to pay the poll


tax. The first and the fundamental point that I make is that those who are poor enough to be on income support should not have to pay the poll tax at all.
Until the Fowler reviews of 1986, it was accepted by all Governments that the supplementary benefit or income support line was so low that rent and rates had to be separately provided for in full. In 1986, for the first time, the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Security decreed that even the poorest on income support would in future be forced to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax and 100 per cent. of water rates.
The poll tax bills have been fixed at such a high level that the Goverment have been forced to backtrack, but they have done so in a way that still exposes millions of people on income support to paying a hefty chunk of poll tax. That is precisely why such draconian legislation is being introduced today.

Mr. Max Madden: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Bradford and a number of other places a problem has arisen for couples who are in receipt of income support and housing benefit because the automatic poll tax rebates which people on income support and housing benefit were told would be paid are not being paid to partners who did not apply or sign for the housing benefit? The poll tax rebate is going only to partners who applied for housing benefit. That is resulting in tens of thousands of people who are in receipt of housing benefit and income support not getting full poll tax rebates and it is causing great hardship. What action do the Government plan to take to alert those people who will lose their poll tax rebate so that they can apply immediately for the poll tax rebate that the Government have been telling them for months they will receive automatically?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend raises one of a wide range of anomalies about entitlement to that benefit. We are all interested to hear the Minister's answer to that.
The problem with the poll tax is that it is extremely complex and the entitlement to rebate is hedged round with several conditions that are not exactly common sense. My hon. Friend has illustrated the point that, although the Government claim that a large number of people will be entitled to rebate, because of the complexity and difficulty of the regulations and people's lack of awareness, only a small number of people will gain significantly, but we look forward to the Government's answer on that.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: My hon. Friend may be interested to hear about a case in my constituency involving a single pensioner who has no savings whatsoever and has been entitled to rebate, but because his retirement pension is£46·73 a week any entitlement he has to income support has been cancelled, so he receives none. He has to pay a poll tax bill of more than £81 this year out of that small income. Because he has chronic bronchitis and circulatory troubles and needs to spend a great deal on heating his house, he has less than £30 a week to pay for his food, clothing and poll tax and he is in desperate straits.

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend illustrates one of the many thousands of cases which no doubt will be drawn to

the attention of the Minister and his officers in the next few months. We look forward to his detailed reply on these matters.
The Government have not succeeded in compensating people on income support. They have claimed to protect them from the pressures of having to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax by providing a 20 per cent. personal allowance for income support claimants based on the Government's average poll tax figure of £278. But that is flawed in three ways. First, as everyone knows, the figure of £278 is a Government fiction and the average figure is about £363, or £85 higher. Income support claimants will not be compensated for that shortfall. Secondly, there will be no compensation for people on income support living in areas charging above the average poll tax. The Opposition have always argued that people on the poverty line should not be treated as pawns in the Government's political battles with local government of any party, and we stick to that principle. Thirdly, the amount added to income support to compensate for the 20 per cent. of poll tax that everyone has to pay was arbitrarily reduced by the Government by about half.
The effect of those three factors is that average poll tax payers on income support in England and Wales will have to find more than £36 from their basic benefit. A couple will have to find almost £76, and in 34 local authorities couples on income support will be more than £2 a week worse off, and at income support level that really matters. In Haringey for example, a couple on income support will be £163 a year worse off. In case anyone thinks that I have particularly chosen a Labour-controlled council, in leafy south Oxfordshire they will be £116 worse off.
There are 4·6 million poll tax payers on income support in England and Wales and nearly all will lose money—with the exception of people living in only two local authorities throughout the country. The steady extortion of money from the poorest in society to subsidise the cost of the poll tax is the most repulsive aspect of a most repulsive tax. Hundreds of thousands of poll tax payers on income support will simply be unable to pay.
The Under-Secretary of State, to whom I am grateful for such a full parliamentary answer, admitted on 19 February:
The Department expects that in any year in England, Wales and Scotland some 850,000 applications for deductions from income support may be made in respect of the community charge, though the number will depend on the extent to which authorities choose to recover unpaid charges using this particular method. We expect about 700,000 of the applications to be enforced.
That is an extremely high figure. One of the poll tax regulations that we are debating today implements that enforcement procedure to which we most strongly object. If Conservative Members believe that those consequences spelt out by the Under-Secretary of State are onerous, not to say draconian, they have the opportunity today to reject the regulations.
Where a liability order is made against the single debtor, the deduction can be 5 per cent. of the rate for a single claimant over 25, or £1·85 a week. For a couple who are both in arrears it is double that—£2·90 a week. The severity of the regulation can be judged by the fact that that amount can be deducted from benefit, provided only that a person is left with at least lop in income support.
The Government are going further still. They propose that deductions for poll tax arrears sit on top of the deductions for other debts—for example, social fund loan


repayments. In other words, under this regulation to which we so strongly object, the Government propose that provided that a person will be left with 10p in benefit, he could be forced to pay up to 25 per cent. of his income on housing, fuel, water, and deductions for arrears and still have to pay a further £1·85 a week in poll tax deductions.
The great debt-collecting apparatus will cost a lot of money. I return to the answer given by the Under-Secretary on 19 February which stated:
The average annual cost to the Department of servicing each application is estimated to be £26. The total staffing requirement in Great Britain is now estimated to be approximately 470 posts."—[Official Report, 19 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 554.]
But even that underestimates the costs. One has to add in the costs to local authorities for registration, billing and interviews, so the total cost is likely to be considerably more than the amount collected. I do not see how one could reach any other conclusion.
There is also the question whether the poll tax deductions take precedence over other deductions for debt. If so, the Department is likely to stop making social fund loans for essential items on the ground that they will not be repaid, or claimants will increasingly have their fuel cut off as payments to the fuel boards are stopped. Of course, councils will not be able to claim arrears through benefit deductions. Local authorities will either have to write off poll tax arrears or use distraint or other measures to recover ridiculously small amounts from the poorest in our community. In the process, councils will simply be adding to the poverty of those on income support because the cost of going to court is invariably added to the original debt. At £100 a time, it could easily amount to more than the original debt.
Why are the Government so gung-ho in pursuing the 1 million low-income families who are already known to be in serious debt when they refuse to take action against landlords who are ripping off the taxpayer by about £420 million a year by continuing to charge the same rent when they no longer have to pay rates to the local authority, when they failed to collect almost £4,000 million of assessed tax revenue in 1988 and wrote off £500 million of so-called uncollectable tax revenue, and when they have failed to collect £250 million of national insurance from the self-employed each year because they will not spend one tenth of that amount on staff to collect it? 
If the poll tax is a curse, the regulations to extract tiny amounts of poll tax, at huge cost, from the poorest and most debt-ridden section of the community are an abomination, and tonight the House should reject them.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Although the Opposition have spoken to just one motion, I understand that we are also discussing the next three motions on the Order Paper:
That the draft Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Community Charge Benefits (Permitted Total) Order 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 533), dated 7th March 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be annulled.
That the draft Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.

The motions must be set against the background of the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget, that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had decided to raise capital limits for income-related benefits. I shall deal with the Opposition's criticism of those arrangements, but most hon. Members warmly welcomed that announcement.

Mr. Jim Sillars: The Minister admitted last night, and he did so again today, that the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer consulted the Department of Social Security. Did the Department consult the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Scottish Office before the Chancellor made his Budget statement?

Mr. Scott: I can only give the assurance that I gave last night: the Chancellor consulted the Department of Social Security, and we warmly welcomed the opportunity to raise the capital limits, as would any sensible hon. Member.

Mr. Madden: So the answer is no.

Mr. Scott: The matter has been raised elsewhere. My concern was to ensure that the Department was consulted. We welcomed the announcement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made to the House.

Mr. Brian Wilson: The Minister said, as a man of reason, and as any sensible or rational person would, that he agreed to the change for the coming year. Was such an approach made last year? Was there any rational person in the Treasury, the Department of Social Security or the Scottish Office? How was the system allowed to run for a year without anyone noticing that this terribly sensible measure had not been taken?

Mr. Scott: I am sorry, but I shall not spend the afternoon jogging backwards with hon. Members from north of the border. We welcome the new arrangements. They will be to the overwhelming benefit of many people.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) misquoted my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the number of people who will benefit as a result of his announcement. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor was clearly talking about the number of people on income-related benefits, not just community charge benefit. If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, I can give him the exact quotation, but I imagine that he will not want me to do so as it would further his embarrassment. It is clear that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was referring to those on income support, housing benefit, family credit and community charge benefit. I shall deal later with the precise number who will benefit from community charge benefit.
I am sure that the House will agree that, with income-related benefits being designed to help people in greatest need, there should be a capital limit above which benefit entitlement ceases. We may argue about the level of the capital limit, but we must all agree that if we are to help those most in need there must be a cut-off point. Under all income-related benefits, the first £3,000 of a claimant's capital resources are ignored, and the lower limit—I know that this is to the regret of the hon. Member for Oldham, West—will not be affected by the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Capital of less than £3,000 and the income that it generates is disregarded in the calculation of a person's or couple's benefit


entitlement. For all income-related benefits, a standard tariff income of £1 a week is assumed for each £250 above the capital limit.
Apparently, the hon. Member for Oldham, West thinks that that provision is ungenerous. I looked back to discover the state of play in 1979 under the previous Labour Government. The hon. Member for Oldham, West giggles in embarrassment; he probably knows what is coming because, as he does his homework so carefully, no doubt he looked back to that period. Under the supplementary benefit rules in 1979, the first £1,200 was ignored—roughly £2,400 according to today's prices, compared with the £3,000 that operates today. The tariff, on which so much weight has been placed, was 25p a week for each £50 of capital—equivalent to £1 for every £200, compared with the £250 that we operate today.
Much play has been made of the 20·8 per cent. assumed income above the lower capital limit. I do not agree with that system of measurement, but if we accept it for one moment, the system operated by the previous Labour Government was not 20·8 per cent. but 26 per cent.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: rose—

Mr. Scott: Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish the point?

Mr. Meacher: Be fair; allow my hon. Friend to intervene.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Member for Oldham, West normally responds by saying, "In a moment", when an hon. Member wishes to intervene in his speeches. I hope that he will not mind if I do not give way immediately.
The Labour party, which has been so critical of us, operated a capital rule that came in at a lower level and imposed a steeper tariff above it.

Mr. Rooker: What was the upper capital limit cut-off point under Labour?

Mr. Scott: Under Labour, there were differing systems—

Mr. Rooker: What was the upper capital limit cut-off point under Labour? Tell the whole truth, please.

Mr. Scott: Two differing systems operated under Labour until reforms were introduced, mainly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in 1986. One set of rules applied to supplementary benefit, but a totally different set applied to housing benefit.

Mr. Madden: So there was not one.

Mr. Scott: Precisely; there was not one. The system for housing benefit was ridiculous because only income was taken into account, regardless of the amount of capital held. That was a completely unsustainable system. The benefits of an aligned system for income-related benefits are obvious to everyone. I think that I have made the point about the Labour party—

Mr. Madden: Get on with it.

Mr. Scott: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is keen to get on with it, because I have proved categorically that we operate a more generous system than the Labour party did.

Mr. Madden: Rather than spending the last five minutes going down memory lane, the Minister should have addressed himself to the question that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). Is he aware that in Bradford, and in other parts of west Yorkshire, only one person in two-person households will receive poll tax rebate, which for months the Government said would be paid automatically to households receiving income support and housing benefit? Tens of thousands of people are receiving full poll tax demands who should be receiving a rebate. What will the Minister do about that?

Mr. Scott: Local authorities are empowered to treat any claim for housing benefit as a claim for community charge benefit. If the hon. Gentleman believes that things are going wrong in Bradford, his proper course is to contact his local authority to ensure that it is operating the system effectively and that it is treating those claims as claims for community charge benefit. If it is doing that properly, there should not be a problem in Bradford. I recommend—

Mr. Madden: There is a problem.

Mr. Scott: I recommend the hon. Gentleman to take that step with the local authority.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Why do the Government still assume that every £250 of savings generates an income of £1 a week? We have just had a Budget and the Chancellor tells us about all the benefits of thrift, but for my sake and that of everyone else, will the Minister tell us where on the high street one can obtain a 20 per cent. rate of interest on one's savings? The tariff rate of £1 a week for every £250 of savings is twice the real rate that people can obtain, from Girobank or anywhere else.

Mr. Scott: I have just been making the point that when Labour was in office and interest rates were rather lower, the Government assumed a 26 per cent. rate of interest. We debated all this yesterday, although it seems longer ago than that. We are really talking not about the principle of an assumed income, but about a rational way in which we can ensure that as people's capital assets increase they can be less dependent on benefit. The rate at which such support through the benefit system is reduced as capital increases is a matter of judgment. It is wrong to consider it in terms of an assumed return on the capital itself. We should consider what is the proper rate at which we reduce the burden on the taxpayer as people's capital increases.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: We have been discussing the 20 per cent. tariff. Surely the real position is that up to £8,000, the first £3,000 incurs no penalty at all. At £8,000, the real tariff is approximately 13 per cent., which is a far more realistic rate and gives us a simple way of calculating benefit without the complication of people making returns.

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend is right. Two factors ameliorate the 20·8 per cent. most frequently quoted. The first £3,000 is disregarded and once benefit begins to be withdrawn above the level the 15 per cent. taper operates for community charge benefit, which further reduces, well into single figures, the rate that is assumed.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: This is a matter of importance. When I live down here, I live in Westminster, which has kept its level down to £195. One


of the actions that it has taken to achieve that has been to discontinue the redecoration of the council houses of elderly people. As a consequence, not only will those people have to meet the cost of redecoration themselves, but they will still have to pay the 20 per cent., and 36 painters, most of whom are in my union, the Union of Construction and Allied Trades Technicians, will be thrown out of work. That is just one of the small steps taken by Westminster council to reach the level of£195. Will the Minister explain how those elderly people will be able to raise money to save, to benefit further under the Government's policies? Does the Minister believe that ordinary working people will stand for this in view of the suffering that this policy will cause them?

Mr. Scott: If I were to stand at the Dispatch Box this afternoon and explain exactly how each local authority is operating and how it has managed to fix its poll tax or community charge limits I should spend a great deal of time here. I have done my best to be generous in giving way to hon. Members of all parties. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too generous."] My hon. Friends say that I have been too generous, but I am a generous fellow. It is about time that I got on with the remarks that I want to make.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West described our actions yesterday in defeating the new clause that he had tabled. He must have taken note of the particular anomaly to which I drew his attention and I do not want to go over all that today. However, the hon. Gentleman had every opportunity to draft the new clause properly and sensibly. He did not do so, so we were right to reject it. We are not discussing the level, but whether there is a different rate for single people and couples. The hon. Gentleman seemed to accept my point yesterday, although he said that it was a quibble. It is up to him to get a new clause right.

Mr. Meacher: I do not want to take further time on the issue, but I must say that the Minister is scraping the dregs of the barrel if that is his only point. He is acknowledging a weakness in his proposals. The poll tax is concerned with individuals, yet single persons and married couples receive the same. That is hardly logical. The Minister said that if one of an elderly married couple died, the amount received would be halved under our proposal. However, the whole point about the poll tax is that it is directed at individuals and it would be wrong for such people to receive double. The Minister's objection is worthless.

Mr. Scott: I am interested to hear that the Labour party is prepared to say that, when an elderly partner dies, the community charge rebate is reduced. That would be the consequence of accepting the new clause.

Mr. Meacher: No.

Mr. Scott: With the greatest respect, I must say that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. By increasing the limit for everybody, we have made it possible for almost 200,000 individuals to benefit from community charge benefit. Of those, 150,000 are pensioners. I am not prepared to accept an anomalous new clause which would lead to people having benefit reduced.
It is about time that I continued, otherwise I shall talk out the whole debate and I should not want to do that. Doubling the capital limit for community charge benefit will help almost 200,000 individuals, of whom 150,000 are pensioners. Sixty-five thousand couples will be helped—half of all new cases. The benefit cost in 1990–91 is expected

to be about £35 million. The extra cost will be charged to the reserve and will not increase the public expenditure planning total. On average, gainers will gain a £5 a week, or £260 a year, reduction in the community charge bill.
There have been groundless allegations that there is an automatic cut-off at £10,000 of capital resources or savings. As I implied in shorthand terms in the debate yesterday, I can assure the House that 70,000 benefit cases with capital over £10,000 will be able to receive benefit and about 50,000 benefit cases involving pensioners will be affected. They too will gain an average of £5 a week, or £260 a year. It is wholly incorrect to assert that only those whose savings are just above the current £8,000 limit will benefit as a result of our proposals.
It may be helpful if I now explain the way in which the rules regarding the treatment of capital work in practice. The House is familiar with the broad details about the £3,000 and the £1 for every £250. In our exchanges across the Floor of the House, we have cleared all that out of the way.

Mr. Nellist: No.

Mr. Scott: We have. We may not agree, but at least we understand the basis of both arguments. We have acknowledged in the course of our discussions yesterday and today that the community charge benefit scheme, incorporating a taper that is more generous than the old rate rebate scheme under housing benefit—15 per cent. compared with 20 per cent.—is another step in the right direction.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West picked out a few examples and, of course, he chose those least helpful to the Government. I want to give some more average examples about the outcome of our proposals for the community charge benefit scheme. Let us consider a pensioner couple, one of whom is over 80 years old. They pay £30 a week rent and their community charge is £350 each. If they have savings of £15,000 and a weekly income of £75·35—and that does not include income from capital—they would gain £4·51 a week community charge benefit. Therefore, it is clear that many pensioners will gain.
We may also consider the example of an unemployed couple with two children aged 10 and 14. They pay rent of £30 a week and a community charge of £325 each. They have savings of £15,000 and a total weekly income of £74·90. They would get £5·70 community charge benefit. It is clear that considerable benefits will flow to a wide range of people as a result of the changes.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members welcome the changes. Of course, it is the Opposition's job to nit-pick and criticise, but most people accept that we are taking an important step in the right direction. Hon. Members accept that the conscientious efforts of people with low incomes who have built up savings for retirement should be recognised in the system of community charge benefit.

Mr. Meacher: The Minister has quoted examples that he believes confirm the Government's case. As he always talks about the spread of occupational pension schemes and the amount that people receive in occupational pensions, does he accept that if the people in the cases that he has quoted had an occupational pension of as little as £30 or £40 a week the benefit accruing would be nil?

Mr. Scott: With regard to occupational pensions, that may well be so. However, I was referring to people in the precise circumstances that I outlined. Just as one's capital affects the calculation of benefit in any income-related benefit scheme, so too does income from any other source. We cannot get away from that fundamental principle.
I want to refer now to claims for benefits, and the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) might be interested in this.

Mr. Nellist: Does the Minister have any information about the number of people in receipt of occupational pensions, in relation to the number of people who have between £15,000 and £16,000 in savings? There must be a few million people with works pensions, who have worked 30 or 40 years, who will be hammered while the rebates, which the Minister described as generous, will be extended to people with savings.

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will have listened to that point with great care and we shall see whether we can be helpful to the House—if I ever get to the end of this speech.
The House will be aware that the changes come into effect on 1 April this year. The regulations provide for backdating claims from people who will become entitled to benefit as a result of the new benefit rules. That will mean —and this is important—that so long as people make claims by 27 May, they will be able to receive any benefit for which they were eligible during the period after the increase takes effect on 1 April. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West will understand, it is unusual in social security matters to allow backdating.

Mr. Allen McKay: As the Minister will be aware, many people receive cash in lieu of concessionary fuel, which affects housing benefit. Such a case is at a tribunal; the tribunal chairman found that the Department was wrong in taking that into consideration. If the Department does not take the case any further on appeal or if it is lost on appeal, will there be retrospective payments for people whose benefits have been affected?

Mr. Scott: I would have to see the final outcome of that case before I commited myself to replying to that question. I gave way to the hon. Gentleman because I respect him highly. However, he would not expect me now, in advance of the tribunal's decision or in advance of an appeal by either side, to give a commitment about backdating.
We shall ensure that so long as people claim by 27 May, they will be able to have benefit backdated to 1 April. I hope that that will be helpful because I am aware that a new benefit such as this can confuse people. We want to ensure that people are aware of their rights and are given the maximum opportunity to claim. We have discussed those matters with the local authority associations and they gave general support to the changes. Local authorities are making every effort to get benefits to the new claimants as soon as possible.

Mr. David Nicholson: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his great patience. Will he take the opportunity in this debate to give the lie to an allegation made in another part of the Palace today, by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), that young people living at home with their parents face eviction because of the rebate scheme? Will he confirm that parents are not legally responsible for meeting the community

charges of their children who are over 18? Will he also confirm that any young person who is genuinely unemployed will receive maximum help, irrespective of the income of his parents?

Mr. Scott: That is absolutely right, as one would expect.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: No. The hon. Gentleman will have other opportunities to make his points and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will reply. However, I believe that it is the mood of the House that I should conclude my remarks as soon as possible. That is certainly my view and I believe that it is widely shared.
I want to consider briefly the amending regulations that were laid before Parliament earlier this month. I do not believe that the House would welcome a line-by-line explanation of them and I do not intend to embark on that. However, the regulations make a number of important changes that affect several groups of people. For example, they provide for an increased disregard of £10 a week for war widows' pensions and war disablement pensions, which was announced last July. They also provide that the special payment to war widows whose husbands served before 1973, which was announced before Christmas, shall be disregarded totally when assessing claims for community charge benefit. Those payments are also tax free. The regulations provide that such payments are to be disregarded completely for community charge benefit. That means that the additonal help being provided for war widows whose husbands served before 1973 will not affect the help to which they are entitled under the scheme.
I want now to consider the Community Charges (Deductions from Income Support) (No. 2) Regulations 1990, which were laid before Parliament on 9 March 1990 and which come into effect on 1 April. The House will be aware that the main principle behind these deduction regulations is that there should be some measure of equality of treatment between those in employment and those receiving benefit. Deductions from income support for those receiving benefit represents a parallel measure to attachment of earnings for those in work where people fail to pay their community charge.
To achieve a liability order, the charging authority must first obtain a liability order from a magistrates court to prove that it is owed the money by the claimant. The liability order triggers the operation of the regulations, which provide that when a local authority has obtained a liability order for a community charge debt it may then apply for deductions from income support to meet that debt. In applying for deductions, the local authority must provide sufficient information to enable the local social security office to identify the debtor. If the adjudication officer decides that there is sufficient income support in payment, the standard rate of deduction will be £1·85 a week, and £2·90 a week for a couple if an order is made against both of them and income support is payable for both of them.
The regulations fix those weekly rates of deductions; there is no provision for them to be varied. The lower rate of deduction is the same as for any other third-party debt. We have taken great care to ensure that the regulations are in harmony with the rules governing payment to any other third party, which are contained in schedule 9 of the Social


Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987.
To sum up, the Government believe that it is right that deductions from income support should be made where the claimant fails to pay his community charge and the charging authority has a liability order to prove the debt. Those regulations are an extension of the Department's existing procedures. Accordingly, I invite the House to reject the prayer against them since they strike a fair balance between the needs of the local community which has to pay the community charge and those who fail to do so. I also invite the House to reject the prayer against the permitted total order.
The Community Charge Benefits (Permitted Total) Order 1990 allows local authorities to make additional payments of community charge benefits to claimants where they consider the circumstances to be exceptional. Those discretionary powers restrict the payment to no more than the maximum community charge benefit. Therefore, however exceptional the circumstances, the charge payer still has to pay 20 per cent. of the charge set by the authority. Primary legislation requires the Department to set a ceiling on the amount of discretionary payments that an authority may make. Similar arrangements apply to housing benefit. We therefore decided that the prescribed ceiling for those discretionary payments should be set at 0·1 per cent. of the total amount of community charge benefit that an authority pays out in a year. We have no evidence that the limit causes difficulties for local authorities and I believe that it offers welcome flexibility for dealing with exceptional circumstances.
I commend the order to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless hon. Members are brief from now on, many hon. Members who wish to speak will be extremely disappointed.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I shall take those words to heart, Madam Deputy Speaker, and be extremely brief.
People on income support are not being treated equally regarding deductions from benefit when compared with people on earnings. Some people in receipt of income support would like their poll tax payments to be deducted from their benefit automatically—similar to what happens with a direct debit for people with earnings. But they will not be allowed that facility, so they are not being treated equally. They will be treated in that way only if a debt builds up. That unequal treatment is grossly unfair.
If my memory serves me right, the Minister said that the provisions will relate to the court costs as well as to the debt. Without checking the Minister's figures, I do not think that, once the costs are added to the 20 per cent. debt, people will be able to pay off those sums during the first 12 months. As they approach the next year and the next poll tax, their debt will go up and up and up.
When the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security replies to the debate, I should like a commitment that the House of Commons will be given the information that it requires. Hon. Members need to know how many people at each local office are having a liability order slapped against them for deductions from benefit. On 14 November last year, I asked the Secretary of State to list

how many claimants on income support at each local office in Birmingham had had their names and addresses sent to the community charge registration officer by the local office. The Minister gave the standard answer that the information was not readily available and that it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
Not to be put off, the next day I wrote to the managers of the two local offices that serve my constituency. Both managers replied by return of post stating that they had contacted their headquarters about it and could not give me the information. Although eventually they were advised by their headquarters that they could tell me, initially Ministers tried to stop the information coming out. When I went to my local office, the staff there were instructed, "Do not answer him; we will think about it." 
A lot of trouble would be saved all round—for local managers and local staff—if we could be given such information at the Dispatch Box when hon. Members ask questions about their local offices and the number of income support claimants who are affected. We should be given that information without the rigmarole of having to write to the local managers or even the Minister. We simply want answers to parliamentary questions about a matter for which the Minister is directly accountable to the House. I should like that point to be clarified when the Minister replies.
Before mentioning some of the anomalies with rebates, I wish to make a point about the independent living fund. Although I do not have it with me, I received a written answer on this from the Minister some weeks ago, and some clarification would be desirable. I have only one constituency case that relates to the independent living fund, and although I do not have to declare an interest, I freely admit that it involves a member of my own family. But the person concerned is a constituent and is entitled to her Member of Parliament's services, just like anybody else.
In effect, the lady concerned has all her income above income support levels subvented to the independent living fund as her contribution to its contribution. Therefore, all her graduated pension and all her occupational pension have to be paid to help meet the independent living fund's contribution to the care and other arrangements made by the local authority. In effect, she has been told, "You do not have anything above income support levels because we need it to help with the contributions." That lady cannot apply for a poll tax rebate because she could not fill in the form and state honestly that she is in receipt of income support, because she is not. She has an occupational pension and a graduated pension.
One of two things must happen. Either people who are involved in independent living fund arrangements have to have their poll tax discounted above income support levels —in other words, they can keep the poll tax amount so that they can pay the tax—or they should be able to apply for a rebate like anybody else who has a net disposable income at only income support level. The position must be clarified. Like me, the social services department. in Birmingham has attempted to clarify this anomaly, but without success. Although the Minister's answer was clear, what we were told should happen is not happening. Despite its problems, the independent living fund is of enormous benefit to many people in helping to keep them in their own homes. It is crucial, but the penalty that will be imposed if changes are not made is unacceptable.
I shall not rehearse all the arguments about student nurses, but I must refer to some of the anomalies. The Minister said earlier, "We have set it all out now. Everybody understands it. It is simple. Everybody knows where they stand on poll tax rebates." I must advise him that most people do not and that even those who understand do not think that the system is fair. I have received a parliamentary answer about the position of Royal Air Force officers. The Ministry of Defence has said that it is aware of the 411 trainees at RAF Halton and that it is telling all the other service stations to ensure that their trainees and students are similarly classified. That is fine for them, but some of them have incomes of as much as £9,000 per year. It is wrong that they should get the rebate when student nurses do not.
One of my constituents wrote to me only last week. She was a health visitor with earnings of £12,000 per year and was due to go on a course at Birmingham polytechnic. It had been agreed that she would be classified as a student and that she would be entitled to an 80 per cent. rebate on her poll tax. Circumstances that I need not go into have meant not only that she is unable to go on the course, but that she has had to leave her job. She is now a housewife with no income and she will receive no rebate because of joint and several liability. She asked me how, when she was earning £12,000 per year, going on a course and married to a husband who was working, she would get an 80 per cent. rebate on her poll tax, whereas now, when she is not working, has no income and is not going on that course, she has to pay her full poll tax. It does not make sense. If the system is shot full of anomalies like that, the Minister has not heard the end of the difficulties about poll tax rebates.
Poor people will be in real trouble. I should like to share with the House a couple of sentences that were uttered when these issues were debated on 23 February 1988, which seems a long time ago now. I refer to the 17th sitting of the Committee that considered the Local Government Finance Bill:
Above all, I am worried because in recent years we have seen the development of two societies….
I am not over-dramatising the position, but I have noticed the haunted look in the eyes of people who shuffle into my surgery. They have been caught in the poverty trap which has come about by a combination of our benefits and tax system and low income….
We have a get-rich-quick, materialistic environment. It scorns people who cannot keep up with it. That is also distressing for parliamentarians. People need our help; they must not be kicked in the teeth by a system that is becoming increasingly hard on them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23 February 1988; c. 884.]
I am not quoting a Labour Member of Parliament; I am quoting a Conservative Member of Parliament. I shall not embarrass him by identifying him. The hon. Gentleman is no longer in his place, as he was a few minutes ago—[Interruption.] Very well—it is public knowledge—it was the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)—

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Surprise, surprise.

Mr. Rooker: Conservative Members are trying to dismiss that statement. A Conservative Member of Parliament has seen the "haunted look". Two years ago, when we were discussing the poll tax rebate system and

how it would work, the Secretary of State said, in effect, "Why should what the duke has to pay be different from what the dustman has to pay?" That is the kind of attitude that we are facing.
The system is unfair. It is shot through with anomalies. With the best will in the world and, at the Department of Social Security, with the finest of dedicated civil servants —I am making up for last night—who do their best to serve Ministers, and who, of course, do not ask questions about the effects of the policies in the first place, the system will not work. The poll tax does not deserve to work. In fact, the rebate system will be the final nail in its coffin.

6 pm

Mr. Timothy Raison: Hon. Members may recall that I did not support the introduction of the community charge when the legislation was passed two years ago. I am bound to say that many of the gloomy predictions made at that time have been fulfilled. However, in this debate we are concerned not with fundamental principles but with the very important question of how to implement the charge, and whether that can be done in as reasonable, perhaps even humane, a manner as possible. Elements of the instruments before us today show that Government are trying to ensure that implementation is eased. They have taken certain important steps to ease the impact of the charge.
My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the generous rebate taper level. It is exceptionally generous compared with almost anything else. Then there is the transitional relief, designed to limit increases where charges are more than £156 above what the Government deem to be a sensible level. In addition, the Chancellor, in the Budget, raised the capital limit to £16,000. That is the subject of the fourth of the instruments that we are considering.
All those things are welcome in principle; they are genuine attempts to ease the introduction of the community charge. However, we still have not done nearly enough to ease the burden on many people who are hit hard by the community charge. Some of the concessions, which were certainly intended to be helpful, have not had the effect that, at first sight, it appeared they would have. In the process of easing the transition into the new system, the Government must go further.
How can that be done? I shall briefly offer one or two thoughts. First, I return to a point that has been raised already. I refer to the capital limits—in particular, to the effect of the assumption that each £250 of capital above £3,000 should add £1 a week to the level of income on which rebates are assessed. As my right hon. Friend the Minister reminded us, this matter was debated here only a few hours ago, but I do not think that the debate has been put to rest. We cannot say that we have got the system right. We really are assuming the equivalent of a 20·8 per cent. yield on capital. That cannot be justified.
I accept that, so long as someone remains within the rebate range, he will have to pay only 15 per cent. of the increase, and I have referred already to the fact that there is a generous rate of taper. However, the real problem is that this level of deemed income will take certain people right out of the income range within which they can get help. Under the provisions that we are debating, they


might qualify in terms of capital, but because of their income they will fail to qualify. The Government really must face up to that fact.
The answer must be provided by doing something like dropping the assumption that £250 of capital will yield an income of £1 a week and assuming that the yield will be about 50p a week. One could try to tie the level more precisely to prevailing interest and yield levels, but, for administrative simplicity, a rough and ready yardstick such as that would probably make more sense. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see the force of this point and will take it very seriously.

Sir John Stanley: My hon. Friend has referred to the generous rate of taper. In historical terms, this is correct, but I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to a written answer that I received from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security on 23 March 1990. That answer, which is recorded in column 788 of Vol. 169 of the Official Report, reveals that a pensioner couple aged between 60 and 74 on an income of £75·55 would get the maximum rate of community charge benefit, but that if that income rose to £106·23, even on the assumption of a £600 community charge between them, they would lose 50 per cent. of their entitlement to community charge benefit.

Mr. Raison: My right hon. Friend has made a significant point, which the House will have clearly heard.
I want to turn to the next element in the package that the Government have offered in an attempt to ease this process—the transitional relief, the help for single people and couples where charges are more than £156 above current rates. This too is welcome, but it assumes sensible spending by the local authority. The judgment as to what is a sensible level of spending is rather hard to justify. In the debate earlier this week, we heard that it was based on an assessment of what the local authority received in the current year, plus 4·64 per cent. Clearly 4·64 per cent. is below the rate of inflation. As a result, the £156, especially in so far as the scheme touches on the assumed level of spending, has its weakenesses.
This too is a matter that could be tackled. If I were to pick out the most useful single short-term action that could be taken to relieve the pressure of the community charge, it would be a reduction of the £156 to £104, or perhaps even £52. That could be done without enormous administrative complication, and it would have immediate effect. Every penny of the money being provided by way of benefit would, by definition, go to the people who needed it most. I realise that this is not the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friends, but I urge on them the need to think very carefully about my proposition. It could very rapidly do enormous good.
I hope to goodness that the Government will not get sucked into the business of extensive rate capping. That would only prolong the agony, month after month. It would also confirm the belief that the community charge is not achieving its objective. It would undoubtedly lead to endless court actions and to local authorities making cuts in those services in which they felt that cuts would have the greatest and most dramatic effect. I ask my right hon. Friends to pass those points on to their colleagues.
I want to return to a point that has cropped up in this debate—whether those who are on income support should pay any community charge at all. One has an instinctive

initial sympathy with the argument that anyone on income support should not have to pay the community charge. On reflection, however, one must accept that, since we have the community charge system anyway, interfering with the objective of achieving greater accountability in local government would make total nonsense of the whole thing. I have therefore come reluctantly to the view that those on income support should have to pay the notional sum—or the 20 per cent.-plus, which I accept is more than notional. But that makes it all the more important that they should be helped in other ways to maintain their standard of living.
As other right hon. and hon. Members want to take part in the debate, I shall not go further, save to say that the Government must immediately take further steps to make the system operate more fairly and to win more acceptance for it among the public at large. Over the coming year, it will be crucial to think again about the fundamental problem of whether there is some way of relating the community charge much more closely to ability to pay.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The debate is reactive to the outcry against this unfair and regressive tax. That is the background to the comments of every hon. Member. The regulations, particularly those which came through the Budget, are an attempt to make some adjustment in view of the unprecedented response, across the generations, to the tax. I am still surprised at how many Conservative Members did not see the gathering storm clouds. There are a number of hon. Members in the Chamber who served, as I did, in Committee on the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which introduced the tax. Hon. Members on this side warned the Government what would happen; some of their own Back Benchers warned them, and so did almost every outside body. Yet a succession of hon. Members who voted the legislation through seem to be surprised by what has happened.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The people who could best have warned the Government were the Scottish Conservative Members who served on the Standing Committee on the legislation which imposed the poll tax on Scotland, but most of them lost their seats at the last election.

Mr. Taylor: I was about the say that they would have found it harder to warn the Government because they are no longer here.
In regard to the regulations about deduction from income support, all the other deductions associated with loans and all the rest come first and the poll tax deduction comes on top, so we see how penal and draconian the measure is. A person might have 25 per cent. of his income support deducted even before the poll tax is considered. Many people whose income is on or just above the exemption limit do not know how they will pay the tax.
On Monday night, I addressed a meeting in my constituency about the poll tax. The people there do not normally come to political meetings. They were angry and were reacting in an extreme way. I tried to explain the penalties and difficulties. The reason for their reaction was that they cannot afford to pay the tax. When some of them spoke to me privately after the meeting, they were more


friendly but they were frightened because they do not know how they will pay. That is what we find about the people who are coming to our surgeries.
The explanatory memorandum on the Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment Regulations says:
Regulation 78 is amended so that collective community charge contributions may in specified cases be paid direct to the collective community charge payer without the consent of the person entitled to the benefit.
Perhaps the Minister would explain that. It seems that the people who are entitled to the benefit will not actually be the people who are expected to have paid it. I am not sure why the benefit should go to the landlord.
I should like Ministers to take up with their colleagues the case of a mature student in my constituency. She has two children and is studying in Plymouth, where she has to live for part of the week. She is expected to pay the 20 per cent. contribution there. Otherwise, because she is on income support, she would have been paying 20 per cent. in my constituency. Because she has a property in my constituency, where her children live during the week, she will have to pay a standard community charge, a double poll tax. The problem has not been properly resolved by the Government. I cannot believe that it is intended. If it cannot be dealt with here, I hope that Ministers will see that something is done about it, because it is clearly nonsense.
The Chancellor's announcement about capital limits, intentionally or otherwise, misled many people. When they heard that the limit was to be increased from £8,000 to £16,000 they believed that they would be entitled to considerable extra help. Certainly they believed that they would be entitled to some extra help. When councils dealt with the flood of problems, more often than not people found that they will not get any help or that the help will be minimal.
We have to explain that the concession is based on the idea that they are getting a return of 20 per cent. on their savings investment. Although they might not be pleased about it, people might understand it if the deduction was based on actual income. The problem is that they are not getting a 20 per cent. return on their savings, apart from the fact that they have already paid tax on the money before putting it aside. Instead of increasing the capital limit to £16,000, the Chancellor should have tackled the limit of £3,000 or the rate of reduction which, more than anything, is divorced from reality.
If the concession is to be based on people's income, why is there a cut-off limit? If we could find someone with savings of £16,000 who is still entitled to help—I think we would be hard-pressed to do it—it is not logical to say that that person will not get help. By definition, the person needs help.
Not only did the Chancellor not think about Scotland: he did not think through his policy as a whole. It does not add up. He has admitted that it was rushed through at the last minute, with insufficient consultation. I think it was rushed through without any thought. The Government had read in the newspapers that it would be a good idea to increase the capital limit to £16,000, so they bunged it through, and ever since they have been wondering what they got up to. We know that they forgot about Scotland. That is not surprising. They forgot about Scotland all the way through. It was not just Ministers who forgot about

it, but all the Conservative Members in England who pushed through for Scotland what they now find unacceptable.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Not true.

Mr. Taylor: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. A few Conservative Members—three, I think—paid attention to what was being done north of the border.
The Government are attempting to ameliorate the problems associated with the poll tax. They are trying to deal with the reality of people's inability to pay. Every time Ministers try to come up with a solution, they throw up more problems for themselves. The tax is not based on ability to pay. However much the Government try to adjust it, they cannot do it. It will not work.
Throughout all the debates it has been pointed out that one other country, Papua New Guinea, was foolish enough to precede the Government down this path. However, that is not true. Papua New Guinea did not bring in a poll tax. It was debated there in 1906 but was rejected as too unfair and difficult to introduce. Instead, a local income tax was introduced. Ministers would be wise to follow that example.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I particularly welcome the uprating of the rule on savings because the old system was a disincentive to savers. We must increase saving levels in Britain—[Interruption]—and rather than sniggering, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) should reflect that the previous Labour Government, instead of giving incentives to savers, had negative interest rates and taxation at 98 per cent., at the highest rate, on savings.
We had a ludicrous state of affairs. That reflects Labour's commitment to savings. We must increase saving levels because the higher they are, the larger the pool of investment for industry—[Interruption.]—and the more—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is clearly nothing wrong with the microphones in the Chamber. The problem is the barracking that is going on underneath them.

Mr. Oppenheim: Opposition Members do not like hearing pertinent facts about the policies of Labour in power.
A high level of savings provides a larger pool of capital for industry to invest, which puts downward pressure on interest rates. That is why countries such as Japan, which have been economically successful, have concentrated their efforts on persuading people to save. We in Britain have learnt that lesson late, but I am glad that action is being taken to redress the balance.
The new regulations do not help many people who do not qualify for rebate, but who are suffering as the result of high levels of community charge. Media cover to date has concentrated on Conservative areas that have problems of their own, problems which are largely irrelevant to my county of Derbyshire.
Some Conservative county councils receive little by way of Government grant. Surrey, for example, gets only £60 a head. In addition, some of those areas are paying


substantial sums—as much as £75 a head—into the safety net. They may complain that they are subsidising Labour areas such as Derbyshire.
We in Derbyshire do not have that excuse because not only are we getting a massive amount by way of Government grant—three or four times Surrey's level—but in my constituency we are also benefiting from the safety net at levels ranging from £51 to £58 a head. Unfortunately, the media have concentrated on Conservative areas, which have one set of problems, and ignored the fundamental problems in Labour-controlled counties such as Derbyshire.
Derbyshire has no excuse for having a high community charge because it is generously treated by the safety net and has a huge grant, much higher than almost every other shire county.

Mr. Michael Jack: Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation to which he refers in Derbyshire is reflected precisely in Lancashire, where Government grant of £533 a head is not sufficient to dissuade the county council from increasing its expenditure by 17 per cent., equivalent to a 30 per cent. increase in the old rates? The result is a community charge £60 to £70 higher than it should be.

Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend makes the point well. It is a shame that the media have not paid more attention to areas such as Lancashire and Derbyshire, where the real problem comes from very high county council spending.

Mrs. Fyfe: rose—

Mr. Oppenheim: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not give way because time is short. Opposition Members have intervened on many occasions during the debate and the hon. Lady has already intervened, and I see the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East, (Mr. Nellist) bursting at the seams to take part in the debate.
Many people have told me that they would consider a community charge in the county of £250 or even £300 to be fair, but not £400. Many who will not qualify for rebate cannot afford £400. The community charge is at that level in Derbyshire because of the policies of the Labour-controlled county council.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Oppenheim: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has just come into the Chamber, while many of his hon. Friends have sat patiently through the whole debate. No doubt he will have a word with me outside in the Lobby after the Division.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Oppenheim: Had the hon. Gentleman been here for the whole debate, I should have happily given way to him. But he wanders into the Chamber from the Tea Room or wherever else he has been and expects to make an intervention.

Mr. Skinner: Will mammy's boy give way?

Mr. Oppenheim: No.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member who has the floor has made it clear that he does not intend to give way.

Mr. Oppenheim: We have a ludicrously high community charge in Derbyshire because of the irresponsible and profligate spending policies of Derbyshire county council. My constituents are expected to pay a community charge close to £400 a head, despite benefiting from the safety net and from one of the most generous Government grants available to any shire council, because the county council has decided to have a £34 million contingency fund, equal to almost £50 per charge payer. Having done its best to keep rate rises low last year—election year—it is setting the community charge as high as possible this year so that it can blame the Government.

Mr. Harry Barnes: rose—

Mr. Oppenheim: In addition, the county council has spent £1 million a year on a public relations department that produces nothing short of socialist propaganda. Just after the community charge level of nearly £400 was announced, the county council threw an expensive party, at the charge payers' expense, to celebrate the release of Nelson Mandela. Many people are happy that he has been released, but they do not want to contribute to a beano at which councillors can celebrate it.
In addition, those councillors have spent £600,000 on an equal opportunities and race relations department; £140,000 on twinning arrangements mainly with towns in China and Russia; and nearly £15 million on a dubious so-called community education programme that most people believe is of little educational benefit.
Derbyshire county councillors have no interest in efficiency and in keeping costs down. That is why—[Interruption.]—since 1981, the number of staff employed by the county council has increased by 8,000, a 20 per cent. increase, and the largest increase of any shire county. The county council leadership seems to believe not that it is running a council to provide services for the people of Derbyshire—

Mr. Barnes: rose—

Mr. Oppenheim: —but that it is running a huge, bloated job agency for its friends in NUPE and COHSE.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Although there are specific motions before the House, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) seems to be spending much of his speech on items that are not relevant to those motions.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is the most genuine point of order that has been put to me in my three years in the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, and perhaps the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) will now address his remarks to the regulations and the question of their annulment.

Mr. Oppenheim: The purpose of the regulations is to reduce the burden of the community charge on poorer people. I am suggesting other ways of reducing that burden. The massive, wasteful and profligate spending policies of counties such as Derbyshire are a significant factor in increasing the burden. Were those councils more sensible in pursuing proper policies, the burden on community charge payers would be substantially reduced. I shall give an example. When district council leaders in Derbyshire got together and produced—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given a ruling. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to follow it and return to the subject under discussion.

Mr. Oppenheim: I always abide by your rulings, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The regulations will prove to be important in making the community charge fairer. On the other hand, we must retain the principle of accountability in relation to the charge, with everyone making a contribution towards the costs of local government.
We must go further and do our utmost to make the community charge fairer. Most people now realise that not everyone pays the same amount because, after all, there is the rebate system. On top of that, throughout England and Wales, 70 per cent. of local government spending is funded by business or directly by the Government. The funding that comes directly from the Government is financed primarily by income tax, which is disproportionately paid by better-off people. We must do as much as possible to make sure that the community charge is fairer.
Local government also has an important responsibility to ensure that it reduces wasteful spending and does not put unnecessary burdens on poor people who cannot afford to pay them. We do not yet have the accountability that we should, because many people voted for county councils last year under the old system without realising what the new system would mean. As the system develops and is fine tuned, it will introduce a great deal of accountability. Until we have greater accountability—which we may not have for two or three years—it is important to defend less well-off people who do not benefit from rebate or benefit only partially. In a county as irresponsible and wasteful as Derbyshire, the only way to defend people is to cap the council.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The poll tax and the rebate regulations that we are discussing become law in three days—on April fool's day. I am almost tempted to rest my case there, but as I have a few minutes, I shall push on.
During the past two or three weeks we have watched Tory Members of Parliament race around in panic. They were compared to headless chickens. I think that that is unfair. Headless chickens are a model of sobriety compared to the way Conservative Members have panicked in the past few weeks both inside and outside the Chamber. However, their concern was synthetic.
Conservative Members were not worried about low-paid workers presently in low-rated property who will be pauperised by the poll tax. They were not worried about women throughout the country and in every industry who earn on average two thirds to three quarters of the wage of a man but have to pay the same poll tax as a man. They were not worried about young people, 80 per cent. of whom, when they leave school, find jobs that earn less than the Council of Europe decency threshold of £150 a week but who pay the same poll tax as higher paid workers. They were not worried for the 11 per cent. of West Indian families and 29 per cent. of Asian families who have six or more adults in their household and will face bills in three days' time of £2,000, £2,500 or £3,000.
They were worried about Conservative seats. The Daily Express predicted that 81 Conservative Members would lose their seats because of the poll tax alone. I do not know

about the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), but if the Prime Minister were run over by a bus tomorrow morning, half that lot on the other side would vote for the bus driver to be the next Prime Minister in grateful thanks.
The regulations before us are supposed to make a fundamental difference to the mass opposition to the poll tax throughout the country. We should remember that only 19 per cent. of the population support the poll tax; 81 per cent. are against it. The regulations will do nothing of the sort. Many families, particularly the 3 million families who are already in serious debt, and arrears for mortgage, rent, gas, water and electricity, must find tonight's debate a joke. What the hell does it matter if the rebate threshold is increased from £8,000 to £16,000 if one is already deep in debt? If one had that level of savings, one would not be in debt in the first place. For millions of families, tonight's debate is irrelevant.
Everyone in the country should apply—I shall use the same date as the Minister used—before May 27 for the rebates to which they might be entitled from every local authority in England and Wales. The reason why they should do so is that those who will pay should not pay any more than they have to. Those who will not pay should not owe any more than they have to. What is more, anything that gives the councils a bit more work to do in the next few weeks so that they cannot get round to court orders suits me down to the ground.
The rebates are paltry. To take my own borough of Coventry—

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What about Wandsworth?

Mr. Nellist: I shall come to Wandsworth in a minute. The hon. Gentleman has just walked in from the bar, obviously after a good lunch, as they say. He should pipe down and let us get on with the serious debate.
In Coventry, the poll tax is £394. That is £7·56 a week. Therefore, the maximum rebate is £6·04. Everyone has to pay a minimum of £1·52 or 20 per cent. For those under 25, that is a net loss of 88p a week. For those over 25 there is a net loss of 85p a week. For couples, there is a net loss each of 88p.
What about those in work? Someone under 25 in Coventry who takes home more than £70·85 a week receives no rebate whatever. Someone over 25 who takes home more than £78·75 a week receives no rebate whatever. A pensioner between the ages of 60 and 74 with an income of more than £85·55 a week receives no rebate whatever. A couple with two children under the age of 11 with a net income of more than £177, including all income from family credit, child benefit or anywhere else, even out of two low-paid jobs of, say, £88 or £89 a week, receives no rebate whatever. That is notwithstanding the regulations that we are discussing.
Young people in Coventry and throughout the country on such levels of low wages will owe from next Monday 2 April a month or a month and a half of their total annual income just to pay Maggie's tax. A hell of a lot ain't going to do it.
The regulations cover two main areas. First, we have the concession of raising the savings allowed from £8,000 to £16,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) dealt with the perfect example of those who thought—probably until tonight—that they would gain. Someone with £15,500 in the bank thought until the


Budget that they would get no rebate. When they heard that the figure had been increased to £16,000 they thought they were okay. He dealt with the example of a pensioner with a small occupational pension which took her £10 over the applicable amount, and with £15,500 savings. Even if she lived in an area where the poll tax was £611, there would be no rebate. That is bad enough, but most hon. Members, particularly the Tory headless chickens, do not realise that, if the poll tax was £350—let us remember that three quarters of all councils in England and Wales have set a poll tax higher than that—that pensioner is limited to a maximum of £4·51 a week in rebate. When the Tories next do their surgeries, they will not have a lot of grateful pensioners coming along to say, "Thanks for doubling the amount." We have gone into all the reasons for that.
I should have still voted against the poll tax, as the Minister knows, but it would have been a bit better if he had done what several of his hon. Friends suggested and lifted the £3,000 at which people start to lose rebate to about £8,000. Parallel to that—no one else has argued for this tonight—he should have increased by £20 or £25 a week the applicable amount of other items such as works pensions which are disregarded before the loss of rebate. We heard from the Chancellor about thrift. But pensions are only deferred wages. It is a way to set aside wages for the future. That is thrift. But people are being penalised by that lower limit of weekly income.
As the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said in response to a question that I put to the Minister, the idea that for every £250 above the savings limit of £3,000 one receives £1 a week in interest is wrong. No Tory Member could point me to any bank, savings institution or other high street institution to which ordinary people have access—I am not talking about Lloyd's—that gives 20 per cent. interest and would give £1 a week for every £250. Millions of people have been conned by that.
The second area covered by the regulations is income support. From Monday, one of the three penalties, other than gaol, which the Government and local authorities can use to force people to pay is benefit arrestment. It is worth noticing—it does not seem that any Scottish Member will get into the debate—that Scotland has had 12 months of the poll tax but not one person has had his or her benefit arrested in Scotland by exactly the same powers as are available here. That is because of the huge number of people affected.
In Scotland, people do not worry about debates such as this, because they have their own rebate system—more than 1 million people have not paid the tax. The Scottish are successfully implementing their own rebate system.

Mr. Wilson: It is true that no hon. Member representing Scotland will have the opportunity to participate in the debate. That is unfortunate, but I know it is not the fault of the Chair. However, that does not give my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) the right to misrepresent the situation in Scotland. An enormous amount of suffering has been caused in Scotland by the poll tax. The vast majority of people included in my hon. Friend's fanciful figure are not involved in non-payment campaigns. The greatest recruiting sergeant for non-payment or underpayment in Scotland is poverty. Inability to pay and poverty is what it is all about. I will not allow anyone, on either side of the House, to claim a trophies people in my constituency who are unable to pay the poll tax and who are not involved in any campaign.

The poll tax is an evil imposition, but one must get the politics of it right. The way to defeat the poll tax is to defeat the people who have imposed it on us.

Mr. Nellist: I do not necessarily disagree with my hon. Friend. The vast majority of people in England who will not be paying will be unable to pay the tax. My hon. Friend says that the figure I gave is fanciful, but it is based on the returns of Strathclyde, Lothian and other regional councils of those who have not paid since last April, who are now more than five months in arrears and who have stopped paying the tax. I maintain that more than 1 million people in Scotland are unable to pay that poll tax.
The regulations raise the amount that can be deducted from income support to £1·85 for a single person and £2·90 for a couple. It is deplorable that people already on the poverty line and in receipt of income support should have anything deducted from that benefit. One third of claimants in this country are already deeply in debt. On average, those in debt owe £84 for fuel, £135 for housing, £132 on purchases, £210 on loans and £119 in other debts. They owe a total of £680, and for them to be driven further into debt by deductions from their income support is absolutely disgraceful.
There is a small silver lining in the cloud. If the poll tax is £500, as it is in Tory Maidenhead and Basildon, those on income support must pay 20 per cent. towards it—£100. That means that, even with the increases announced today, it costs less to have the poll tax taken out of one's benefit than to try to pay it. I am sure that quite a few people will follow that line.
In recent weeks, I have received an enormous number of letters and they have made me proud of the things I have said inside and outside the Chamber. I have received, for example, a letter from a former beach commando who was strafed and bombed for five and a half years during the second world war. In the past two days, I have received letters from pensioners living in Cheshire, Exeter, Wallsend, Birmingham and Tamworth who tell me that they cannot afford to pay. They say that they are pleased that someone is standing shoulder to shoulder with them in their battle.
I make no apology to those Tory Ministers who were egged on and organised by Dr. Julian Lewis in their attempts to smear those who will not pay the poll tax. It will not work.
A couple of years ago, the Prime Minister said that the poll tax was the flagship of her third term of office. From Monday, millions of people will show that it ain't no flagship, it is her Titanic. She is going down with the ship.

Ms. Clare Short: Tonight we are discussing one set of regulations that try to modify a deeply unjust tax. It is no good, however, fiddling around at the margins—that will not help. The fundamentals behind the tax are unjust and cannot be put right. The country has begun to realise that such is the Government's problem. The other regulations relate to taking away money from those on benefits who get into debt.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim)
—I am sorry that he has left the Chamber—failed to give way to anyone and made a disreputable attack on Derbyshire county council. I do not know about that county council in detail, but we all know that Tory authorities have set their poll tax 31 per cent. above the


Government-set figure, and that Labour authorities have set it 34 per cent. above that figure. We know that the Government figures are wrong, and statements from associations representing Labour and Tory local authorities back our claim. To say that the debate centres on Labour councils is equivalent to lies and fibs.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley also attacked the equal opportunities policy of Derbyshire. Clearly the hon. Gentleman is not in favour of black people and women having equality in the county. He also attacked the party given to celebrate that lion of a man, Nelson Mandela, on his release from imprisonment, and community education. His attack on the county council was disreputable in all respects.
The first set of regulations relates to deductions from those on income support to meet their arrears on poll tax. We know that those on income support are already being ripped off because the 20 per cent. contributions that they must pay towards the poll tax in their local area is based on the Government's figures, but the real rates of poll tax are much higher. Everyone on income support will be poorer because of the poll tax and the Government's implementation of it.
The principle of deduction from income support is a worry, because we are taking money from people who are given the minimum on which it is calculated they need to live. The people who are unlikely to be able to pay the poll tax are those who are already in debt for other things. The level of debt in Britain is higher than it has ever been; our level of indebtness is higher than that of any other European country.
People on low incomes, low-paid workers and people on benefits are being squeezed by the Government so that they can give more in tax handouts to their rich friends. Loan sharks and creditmongers have pushed their credit at those on low income and many people are now suffering deeply as a result of indebtedness. Many people are already paying money out of their income support to pay off debts that they have collected.
The regulations mean that a deducation of £1·85 a week can be made from a single person—nearly £100 a year—and £2·90 a week from a couple—nearly £150 a year. Given that those deductions will not cover the debt, it will carry on in subsequent years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) has made clear. The deductions can be made, providing a person is left with at least 10p per week in income support. Deductions might already be made from that support to pay for housing, rent, fuel and water debts as well as the overpayment of benefit, whether it was the fault of the recipient or not. A person's income support might also face a deduction for the social fund.
Under our system, a maximum of 25 per cent. of a person's income support can be deducted without his or her consent. That deduction is made from the minimum which it is judged people need to live on. Today the Government are suggesting that, on top of that 25 per cent., £1·85 or £2·90 can be taken from that benefit, provided that 10p a week is left in income support.
Tonight the House is being asked to approve regulations penalising those on little, who are already in debt. Those people are facing a deeply unjust tax and they are now to have money compulsorily deducted from their

income support. Will Conservative Members vote for that? What will they say to their constituents? When they vote this through and find out how unpopular it is, they will try to distance themselves and pretend that, for some reason or other, they do not really support the change.
The other regulations implement the Chancellor's misleading concession in the Budget. There is no doubt that he misled elderly people with savings into believing that they would receive a rebate on the poll tax. I do not believe that the Chancellor knew what he was doing, as the figures he quoted do not make sense. He said that 250,000 people would benefit, at a cost of £120 million. From my desk in the Cloisters, I heard a Tory Member with a marginal seat who rang his agent to say that 500 people in a certain area would get £400 each. Suddenly, different figures were given by the Department of Social Security. We are now told that 195,000 people will benefit at a cost of £35 million. Where did all the other money go? 
I think that the arrangements were cobbled together in panic. I do not believe that the Department of Social Security was properly consulted. Opposition Members tabled an amendment to the Social Security Bill on this very point, and were told by the Minister that there was no possibility of a concession. Shortly afterwards, the Chancellor made such a concession and messed it up—probably because he did not properly consult the DSS, any more than he thought about Scotland or the needs of its people.
The concession on capital limits has been a mess from beginning to end. It has misled Tory Members into waving their Order Papers because they thought that they had obtained some relief; more seriously, it has misled many elderly people who have more than £8,000 in savings and who thought that they would be given significant help with their poll tax. That is wrong: the poll tax is wrong. It is wrong to mislead people in that way.
I believe that even the Government's so-called concession will blow up in their face. The anger of those elderly people when they find out what really went on will cost the Government politically even more dearly than the poll tax is costing them now.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I should dearly like to answer all the detailed questions that have been asked during this short debate, but time does not permit it. Some, in any event, would be dealt with more appropriately by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), however, asked one question that needs to be passed on to the trustees of the independent living fund. The hon. Gentleman also asked about information from local officers. I assure him that local office managers have approached the divulging of information with proper care, although of course they were able to answer his inquiry in a proper way as well. We have nothing to hide in that regard.
Today's debate has centred on two issues—tariff income and capital, and deductions. Hon. Members' concern about tariff income and capital limits is understandable, because community charge benefit is not the simplest benefit in the world to explain. Nevertheless,


there has been some misunderstanding about the £1 of weekly benefit per £250 of capital, and of the fact that the deduction represents a very generous taper of 15p a week.
Let me give some examples, as a good deal of misleading information has been given. Let us take a married couple in their 50s. The husband is disabled, and is cared for by his wife. Their rent is £23 a week, their community charge is £400 each and their savings stand at £13,000. Their total weekly income is £138·90, not including income from the capital. That couple will receive £6·96 a week in community charge benefit.
Now let us take a single pensioner in her 80s, paying a rent of £25 a week and a community charge of £400. She has £12,000 in savings and a total weekly income of £47·15, not including income from her capital. She will gain £5·89 a week in housing benefit, and £1·73 a week in community charge benefit.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) pointed out, however, the prayer is against the provisions for deductions. The enforcement of community charge arrears is, as she will appreciate, a matter for local authorities, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has already explained how that will work. I feel, however, that I must clarify the misrepresentation that has been repeated today by the hon. Members for Ladywood and for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about the 10p a week. It is entirely misleading to say that the Department intends to take large amounts of benefit away from people in order to leave them with only 10p a week on which to live.

Ms. Short: We did not say that.

Mrs. Shephard: That was the implication, and neither hon. Member corrected it.

Mr. Meacher: What we said was that large sums could be deducted in poll tax arrears, as long as people were left with 10p in income support. We did not use the words "in order to leave". Does the Minister not consider that disgraceful?

Mrs. Shephard: I should like to continue my explanation, because I still think that the hon. Gentleman is giving a misleading impression. He is giving the impression that the 10p is all that people will have to live on. The fact is that benefit can be reduced to lop a week only if the income support was very low in the first place because the claimant had other income—for example, from other contributory benefits. The 10p minimum level of income support is retained precisely to retain for the claimant automatic eligibility for free NHS dental treatment, prescriptions and vouchers for glasses. It is important to clear that up.
As an amount is included in income support for the payment of 20 per cent. of community charge, we think it only right that a separate deduction should be made to pay any community charge arrears, as would happen if the claimant were in work. Deductions can be made from income support to meet debts relating to housing costs and fuel or water charges: clearly that is necessary for the claimant to retain tenure of the property and the supply of essential services.
From April, those deductions for arrears will be limited to a maximum of £5·55 a week. If the income support being paid is not enough to meet the debts and the community charge arrears, the regulations provide that the other deductions shall take precedence over

community charge. Obviously, deductions from income support for housing, fuel and water costs must be given a higher priority, to protect claimants and their families.

Mr. Rooker: The debt deduction from income support will be possible only if a liability order has been obtained from the courts, and that will involve court costs. The local authority will add them to the debt, which will mean a minimum of £60 on top of the 20 per cent. payment. How will that money be collected?

Mrs. Shephard: As I have said, the enforcement of orders will be a matter for local authorities.

Mr. Rooker: Who will pay the court costs?

Mrs. Shephard: I really cannot answer the hon. Gentleman in any better way; that is the position.
It is extraordinary that Opposition Members should choose to ignore the positive aspects of the regulations. Perhaps, on the other hand, they prefer not to know about them. According to an advertisement about the community charge that was issued recently by the Labour-run Association of Local Authorities,
a few might find themselves entitled to a rebate".
That is misleading, as one might expect; but it is misleading on two counts. It will be not a few, but a large number, and it is not "might" but "will". The increase in the limit of the savings that people can have while still receiving help with the community charge has been widely welcomed.
Let me repeat that the increase will help 195,000 individual charge payers, of whom 150,000 will be pensioners. The backdating arrangements and the publicity will ensure that people will be able to benefit, provided that they apply before 27 May. The regulations also provide special arrangements for specific and vulnerable groups—although Opposition Members, of course, did not mention that.
The £40-a-week payments announced in December for war widows whose husbands served before 1973 will be entirely disregarded, and the disregard for war disablement pensions will be doubled to £10 next month. All lump sums from the Macfarlane Trust for haemophiliacs with an HIV infection will be totally disregarded, and the disregard for regular and charitable payments will also be doubled. That move has been widely welcomed by charitable and voluntary organisations throughout the country.
The sums allocated for the benefit are very generous indeed. The planned expenditure on community charge benefit for next year is £2·5 billion. The more generous taper of 15 per cent. instead of 20 per cent. will bring a further 650,000 people on to the benefit, and half of all benefit claimants will be helped. Help is to be given to 10 million people in all—one in four of the population.
The regulations are sensible, fair and generous. I commend them to the House and invite the House to reject the prayers.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 298.

Division No. 148]
[7 Pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Allen, Graham
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)


Armstrong, Hilary
Barron, Kevin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Beckett, Margaret






Beggs, Roy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bell, Stuart
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bidwell, Sydney
Illsley, Eric


Boateng, Paul
Janner, Greville


Boyes, Roland
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bradley, Keith
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Kilfedder, James


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Lamond, James


Buckley, George J.
Leighton, Ron


Caborn, Richard
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Callaghan, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Litherland, Robert


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Livingstone, Ken


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cartwright, John
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Loyden, Eddie


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McAllion, John


Clay, Bob
McAvoy, Thomas


Clelland, David
McCartney, Ian


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cohen, Harry
McFall, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McKelvey, William


Corbett, Robin
Maclennan, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
McNamara, Kevin


Cousins, Jim
McWilliam, John


Crowther, Stan
Madden, Max


Cryer, Bob
Maginnis, Ken


Cummings, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Martlew, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Meacher, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Meale, Alan


Dixon, Don
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dobson, Frank
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Doran, Frank
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morley, Elliot


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eastham, Ken
Mullin, Chris


Fatchett, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Faulds, Andrew
Nellist, Dave


Fearn, Ronald
O'Brien, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fisher, Mark
Patchett, Terry


Flannery, Martin
Pendry, Tom


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Foster, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Foulkes, George
Prescott, John


Fraser, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Fyfe, Maria
Quin, Ms Joyce


Galloway, George
Randall, Stuart


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Redmond, Martin


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


George, Bruce
Reid, Dr John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Richardson, Jo


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rooker, Jeff


Gordon, Mildred
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Rowlands, Ted


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Ruddock, Joan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Salmond, Alex


Grocott, Bruce
Sedgemore, Brian


Harman, Ms Harriet
Sheerman, Barry


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Short, Clare


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Sillars, Jim


Heffer, Eric S.
Skinner, Dennis


Hinchliffe, David
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Home Robertson, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hood, Jimmy
Spearing, Nigel


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Steinberg, Gerry


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Stott, Roger





Straw, Jack
Wigley, Dafydd


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wilson, Brian


Turner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Vaz, Keith
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wall, Pat
Wray, Jimmy


Walley, Joan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert N.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Mr. John Battle




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dorrell, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dover, Den


Allason, Rupert
Dunn, Bob


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Durant, Tony


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Amos, Alan
Eggar, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Emery, Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Evennett, David


Ashby, David
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Fallon, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Farr, Sir John


Atkinson, David
Favell, Tony


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Fishburn, John Dudley


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Franks, Cecil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Roger


Body, Sir Richard
French, Douglas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fry, Peter


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Gardiner, George


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowis, John
Gill, Christopher


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gow, Ian


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Gregory, Conal


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Butler, Chris
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butterfill, John
Grist, Ian


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grylls, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carttiss, Michael
Hague, William


Cash, William
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chope, Christopher
Hanley, Jeremy


Churchill, Mr
Hannam, John


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Harris, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hawkins, Christopher


Colvin, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Conway, Derek
Hayward, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Couchman, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cran, James
Hill, James


Critchley, Julian
Hind, Kenneth


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Devlin, Tim
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)






Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Mellor, David


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Miller, Sir Hal


Hunter, Andrew
Mills, Iain


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Irvine, Michael
Mitchell, Sir David


Jack, Michael
Moate, Roger


Jackson, Robert
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Janman, Tim
Moore, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Morrison Rt Hon P (Chester)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Moss Malcolm


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Needham, Richard


Key, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Neubert, Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Kirkhope, Timothy
Nicholls, Patrick


Knapman, Roger
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Norris, Steve


Knowles, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Oppenheim, Phillip


Latham, Michael
Page, Richard


Lawrence, Ivan
Patnick, Irvine


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Pawsey, James


Lightbown, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lilley, Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Portillo, Michael


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Powell, William (Corby)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Price, Sir David


McCrindle, Robert
Raffan, Keith


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Redwood, John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Maclean, David
Riddick, Graham


McLoughlin, Patrick
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Madel, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Major, Rt Hon John
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Mans, Keith
Rost, Peter


Marland, Paul
Rowe, Andrew


Marlow, Tony
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Ryder, Richard


Maude, Hon Francis
Sackville, Hon Tom


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sayeed, Jonathan





Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Tracey, Richard


Shelton, Sir William
Tredinnick, David


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Trippier, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trotter, Neville


Shersby, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sims, Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Speed, Keith
Walden, George


Speller, Tony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Ward, John


Squire, Robin
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Warren, Kenneth


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Watts, John


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, Sir John


Stevens, Lewis
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Wilkinson, John


Stokes, Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Summerson, Hugo
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)



Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Tellers for the Noes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Alistair Goodlad and


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. John M. Taylor.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [23 March], to put successively the Questions on motions made by a member of the Government.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.—[Mr. Scott.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the draft Community Charge Benefits (General) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.—[Mr. Scott.]

Question agreed to.

Exmouth Docks Bill (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir Peter Emery: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will those hon. Members who do not wish to remain please leave quietly?

Sir Peter Emery: Because of some suggestions in the national press, I make it clear that I have no shares or interest in Exmouth Docks company, the Exmouth Docks Steamship company, the land surrounding the docks or any land in Exmouth, or anything to do with the companies which suggest a development at Exmouth docks.
It is interesting to note that, according to the journals, a previous Bill relating to Exmouth docks received a Second Reading in July 1868—[Interruption.] I have been a Member of the House for a considerable time, but not that long. The Bill received an unopposed Second Reading, but later on, mainly before it reached Committee, it ran into one or two difficulties and Standing Orders had to be repealed to let it go through. Two of the nominated directors in the Bill were removed from it, after which the Bill proceeded without difficulty. The most interesting aspect was that the total capitalisation necessary to make the docks and create the railway sidings ran to only £60,000, an amazing figure when one looks at today's costs.
One need not go back any further than the 1960s, when the docks fell into considerable disuse and remained so, with small tonnages going through, until the docks company was purchased in 1982 by new owners who attempted to revitalise the commercial life of the docks by encouraging the importation of animal feedstocks to serve the needs of the farming community in Devon and Somerset.
It soon became apparent that, if the docks were to be financially successful and a viable proposition, it was necessary to construct new deep-water berths for vessels larger than 2,500 tonnes dead weight. Such larger ships are essential for coastal traffic as the older generation of cargo vessels disappears. But because of the narrow docks entrance at Exmouth, vessels of that size could not enter the docks basin.
It is necessary for me to show that the company has tried to keep the docks going. At that time the company applied to East Devon district council, the local planning authority, for planning permission to construct new berths. But the council said in no uncertain terms that it was strongly opposed to the proposed modernisation of the docks and the company withdrew its application.
In the 1980s the greatest increase in business that the docks company could obtain arose from the docks strike and the coal strike. At that time, the docks tonnages increased from below 400,000 tonnes gross weight a year to 523,00 tonnes in 1985, at which level it remained, give or take 10,000 tonnes, until the docks closed in 1989. For anybody to say that the docks were expanding or becoming increasingly successful would not be correct.

Mr. John Prescott: It is important to know whether traffic through the dock was growing. It has been suggested that the miners' strike

brought more vessels and coal through the docks and led to their growth. According to the figures that I have for the numbers of vessels and the tonnage, before the miners' strike the tonnage through the port more than doubled from 158,000 in 1978 to nearly 400,000 in 1982. The number of ships increased from 279 to 551. After the strike about 500 ships a year continued going through the port. It would be fair to say that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman is implying, traffic through the port has grown not simply because of the coal strike.

Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry if my figures were misunderstood. Let us have the facts, as people should make a judgment on the exact facts. I was suggesting that the growth from 400 to 500 ships occurred during the two strikes. In 1985 the tonnage through the docks was 523,478; in 1986 it was 511,350: in 1987 it was 536,580; in 1988 it was 516,462; and in 1989 it was 523,223. Therefore, my original statement that growth has been at an average level since 1985 is fair.
The objections to the docks made up the largest single file that I had as a constituency Member about any factor in east Devon. The dust, the size of the lorries and the environmental disturbance that the docks were causing to local residents provided me with more complaints than I have received on any other issue. The complaints led to the dock company being taken to court and asked to meet restrictions on and requirements to deal with dust and nuisance. Although the company spent considerable sums of money trying to comply, it is almost impossible to stop dust when handling open feedstuff cargo and the company was prosecuted under the Public Health Acts, leading to the issue of prohibition notices under the Public Health (Recurring Nuisances) Act 1969.

Mr. Prescott: It is important to get some of the facts established at the outset as we shall want to discuss them. I could be wrong, but I understood that the prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive concerned the continued complaints from many people in the area which the hon. Gentleman has drawn to the attention of the House. I confirm that that is so, as I have visited the docks. They were concerned about the dust and dirt and complained that no action of any substance was taken by the docks authority to correct that. That is why the company was prosecuted under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. As he said that considerable sums of money were spent by the authority for dealing with the problem of dust and dirt, can he give us some idea of the sums involved?

Sir Peter Emery: I cannot give the exact figures, but a new hopper complex with covering for the cranes that were unloading and air ducts to stop the dust blowing around was constructed. I know that the company visited docks throughout Europe to try to find modern equipment to meet the requirement to stop the nuisance. The company was very conscious of that, and I repeat that it went to considerable trouble.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Paragraph 6 of the statement on behalf of the promoters of the Bill talks about
prosecutions being brought under the Public Health Acts.".
However, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned only the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and a prohibition notice. The Health and Safety at Work, etc Act applies to people affected by a process, but substantially it is not the same as the Public Health Acts.


Was action taken under the Public Health Acts? The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 is not a public health Act.

Sir Peter Emery: I must look in Hansard as I had no intention of mentioning the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act. I was referring to action under the Public Health Acts leading to the issue in December 1987 of a prohibition notice under the Public Health (Recurring Nuisances) Act 1969.

Mr. Prescott: I mentioned the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act.

Sir Peter Emery: It was the hon. Gentleman who did that, not me.
The company complied with that requirement and applied for outline planning permission for the development of most of the land, including the docks. The company had earlier tried to obtain planning permission for residential development of the land containing holiday chalets round the docks, but the district council refused permission because of the proximity of the area to the working docks. Under the June proposals the dock basin would accommodate only pleasure craft, although facilities would continue, because there was originally an objection from the fishermen in the area, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. They have now withdrawn their objection because arrangements have been made to facilitate the local fishing fleets; I can supply the details if necessary.
The dock basin has been closed since the beginning of the year.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way and I do not intend to tire him, but a number of people and groups made objections and several of those objections have been withdrawn. It would be helpful to the House if the hon. Gentleman could tell us why the fishermen and others who registered objections are now in the process of withdrawing them or intend to withdraw them. The House should understand the extent of the objections, whether they have been withdrawn and the reasons for withdrawing them.

Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. If I had passed the outline of my speech to the hon. Gentleman he would have seen that an entire section deals with the five objections to the Bill.
The Bill is promoted by the Exmouth Docks company, which was established under the Exmouth Docks Act 1864. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise the company to discontinue the operation of the docks and close them to commercial traffic.
It was originally suggested to the company that a harbour revision order might be the way to proceed. The company was happy to do that. It would have allowed the public inquiry, but the company had no reason to stop that. My hon. Friend the Minister decided that, legally, he was not authorised to grant a harbour revision order. I see that he is nodding in agreement. He might have considered granting such an order if that were possible, but he had to inform the company and East Devon district council that that was not within his legal rights. So the company considered the matter and that is why the Bill is now before the House.
I understand hon. Members on both sides of the House objecting to the private Bill procedure being used to

circumvent planning law and planning applications. The Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure has made recommendations on that, but they have not been carried through.

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; it is inevitable that I shall ask him to do so to secure information. I know that he will reply to the debate at the end, but it may be better for him to answer my inquiry now.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point and I should like to hear his views because I have seen documents asking whether the Bill is necessary for the conversion from commercial docks to a marina. I have been led to believe, and I have read statements from either representatives of the development company or the organisations involved, that the company has received legal advice that it is not necessary to proceed with the Bill for the conversion from commercial docks to a marina. If so, why are we considering the Bill?

Sir Peter Emery: As with many legal matters, there is no simple answer to that question. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall try to deal with the matter in detail.
Sensibly, the company considers all the options because it is not gaining any income from the docks at present—

Mr. Prescott: Because it has shut them.

Sir Peter Emery: Of course. It has been advised that it would be unsafe to continue. I shall deal later with the cost to the company of proceeding.

Mr. Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery: I am trying to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to answer one question at a time?
The company took advice, and it was suggested that it might be possible—not that it was possible—to proceed without the Bill as long as the development was not challenged in the courts. If it was challenged in the courts, the development would be uncertain.
The planning committee of East Devon district council wants an assurance before granting planning permission that the structure that it suggested in the plans will remain. Later, I shall read a letter from it urging that the Bill should be allowed to proceed. One option is sure but the other is open to some doubt.

Mr. Cryer: The somewhat spartan statement from the promoters says that some consulting engineers have reported. It says that
certain of the dock walls are unsafe, and could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles are used at the dockside.
Has a copy of that report been deposited for hon. Members?

Sir Peter Emery: I cannot answer that question. I would judge that it has not been deposited because it has not been asked for, but I shall try to deal with it in my speech because it is an important matter. A Committee can deal with such matters better than hon. Members on Second Reading.
The company decided to bring a Bill before the House. I said earlier that hon. Members object to private Bills being used to circumvent planning procedures. This Bill has been through all the required planning procedures and has the approval of Exmouth town committee, which was


set up by East Devon district council and comprises councillors from the Exmouth area. East Devon district council wrote to me saying:
I understand that the Second Reading of the Bill is likely to take place next week and it may be useful for you to know this council's position on the matter. I can confirm that the Council's Planning Committee has given planning permission for the redevelopment of the Exmouth docks for a marina together with the associated residential development, subject to formal closure of the docks by the necessary legal process, ie the Bill currently before Parliament.
That reinforces the point that I made to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. The letter continues:
The council has accepted the reality of the situation and that the days of Exmouth as a commercial port are over and that the docks should close. I understand that there are fears in some quarters that private Bills such as this may be used to circumvent normal planning procedures, but I can confirm that this is definitely not the case with this Bill. I would reiterate that the proper planning process has been followed and permission given.
That is of considerable importance and I hope that it assures hon. Members who have been concerned about the private Bill procedure.
I now turn to the report of Hydraulics Research Ltd, about which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) asked. I am sure that details of the report can be provided to hon. Members if it has not already been deposited in the House. It makes it quite clear that expenditure of over £1 million will be necessary to make the docks safe, and that equipment to modernise and to meet restrictions under the health Acts is likely to cost about the same. It is impossible for the company to meet such expenditure, even if the company does not wish the development of the docks as a marina. The company has considered seeking financial assistance, but section 12 of the Harbours Act 1964, which allowed for grants to docks, was repealed in 1981. That grant facility is no longer available.
Originally, there were five objectors—two major objectors and three individuals. Initially, the major objectors were fishermen, who were concerned about their right to enter the harbour. They wanted to be assured that there would be a harbourmaster. They wished to have areas to unload fish, which traditionally they had done, and one or two other facilities. The company has given legally binding assurances that the number and size of vessels that the fishermen stipulated will be able to enter the port and that it will be open in emergencies or in bad weather. To meet the wishes of fishermen, the company has provided land for a refrigeration process which hitherto they did not have. The fishermen therefore withdrew their objection.
The next objection came from a strange source—one might say that it was somewhat impertinent. It came from Exeter city council.

Mr. Prescott: Impertinent?

Sir Peter Emery: Yes, I said impertinent, but perhaps I should put that in inverted commas. The council objected because it would lose income. Its real objection was that the dues of £168,000 a year which it obtained from the operation would be lost if the docks did not operate. However, as the docks are closed, the council is receiving no income, so it seems strange to me—I do not represent

Exeter—that Exeter city council is trying to interfere in what Exmouth and East Devon district council saw as the best development.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman has come to a more controversial point. He refers to the impertinence of the authority. Exeter city council is, as I understand it, the navigation and conservation authority for the river. It is entitled to impose charges on all vessels on the river to pay for the lights and navigational aids required under merchant shipping legislation. The money does not go into the coffers of Exeter city council for playing fields, for example, but goes to maintain navigational aids on the river and to make it safe. The problem now for the council and the citizens of Exeter is that if the charges are not secured from other vessels or in other forms, the navigational aids will be a charge on the authority itself. Exeter will find not only that it is losing income, but that it still has costs for which it can no longer levy charges. The council is not simply picking up money; its position is a dead loss. It will have to finance navigational aids, which is no loss to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but is a loss to Exeter.

Sir Peter Emery: I had better withdraw the word "impertinent". However, some of the costs will not be incurred because the harbour will not be operating as a commercial harbour. I cannot estimate the variation, but there will be a considerable saving. I do not believe that one local authority should impose charges on another authority which is unable to continue with an operation because it is no longer viable. That is, perhaps, the best argument.
I can now give certain assurances to the House. The House will be pleased to know that a recommendation will go to the relevant Exeter city council committee on Monday 2 April that the objection of the Exeter city council be withdrawn because arrangements have been made between the present company and the authority which allow it to withdraw its objection. I am delighted that that is the case. I was informed that the Committee would have liked to have had the recommendation before this debate, but 2 April is the first date on which it can go to the Committee.

Mr. Prescott: What about compensation?

Sir Peter Emery: I cannot say exactly. All that I can say is that that is the recommendation.
There were three private objections. One was a private objection from a previous employer, which has now been settled, and two are outstanding. Mrs. Susan Winters, a chandler, used to sell goods round the docks. She has claimed that her income has been affected by the closure of the docks. I accept that that is the present position, but Exmouth docks are not her only source of income and her business is likely to be far greater with a marina. She will be able to supply more to the boats in the marina than she could to the slightly larger commercial vessels which previously used the docks. If the Bill goes to Committee, she has the right to make her case and I do not have to make it for her.
The second outstanding objection is from Mr. Stephen Lytton, who is a former assistant pilot. He is not employed by the company, but he is working with only 18 months' service. Even if he had been employed by the company, he could not have claimed a statutory redundancy payment;


but the company, realising his position, has made an offer to Mr. Lytton. However, he wants a settlement that would put all the former employees of the company, who have agreed to redundancy payments and other benefits, into a wholly unfair position. The company is still willing to make a fair settlement to the two objectors and it will continue to take that stance.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman referred to two previous employees who, I believe, were shipping agents in the port. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that they were shipping agents who had to move to another port because the company arbitrarily finished commercial operations at the port in December? Were they shipping agents and, if so, what—if any—compensation did the company pay them?

Sir Peter Emery: A shipping agent was supposed to be putting in an objection. I believe that he never put in a formal objection, but I should have to consult on that. He was a shipping agent in the port. Negotiations took place between the company and the gentleman, and he was happy to accept the terms. I cannot say what he is doing now. I believe that necessary compensation, which was acceptable to him, was negotiated. I am right in saying that no objection to the Bill was lodged by that individual.
The company strongly believes that it is not financially possible for it to reconstitute the dock as a commercial operation. If it were to be a commercial operation, the company would have to consider—this would not appeal to the Opposition—building up a trade in the importation of coal. Some of my hon. Friends might want that, but some hon. Members would definitely object strongly.

Mr. Prescott: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that it would be commercially possible to import coal and to meet the expenditure necessary to allay the anxiety about safety at the docks? He is now telling us that it would be possible to make the port profitable by importing coal. I thought that he was telling the House that the money needed to make the dock safe made it impossible for the dock to operate commercially. Which argument does the hon. Gentleman want to deploy?

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman is being—

Mr. Prescott: Mischievous?

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman would never be mischievous. However, he is putting words into my mouth. I have made it clear that the dock company considers that it could take no action to make the dock commercially viable again. I asked the company where, if it could choose, it would go for cargo and I have told the House its answer. The answer does not imply that there is any likelihood of that cargo alone reconstituting commercial activity in the dock. The company has made it clear that even its previous trade in agricultural feedstuffs has now gone elsewhere and the company's chance of winning that trade back are negligible. Clearly, there is no way in which the company or East Devon district council believes that the dock can be made a commercial proposition once more.
I want now to consider the benefits that would accrue for Exmouth. For a long time many people have believed that the area along the south coast to which I have been referring needs a marina. There is only anchorage in the

estuary, and no marina along the east Devon coast in my constituency from Uplyme to Exmouth. One has to go round the Exe to Torquay before one finds such a facility.
Exmouth is a major tourist area and its income is dependent on tourism. The council and the overwhelming majority of people in Exmouth believe that a marina and the kind of development that we are discussing today would be excellent commercially for the town, and that is what they have recommended.

Mr. Prescott: There is some contention over a piece of land to which I believe the hon. Gentleman referred and which is mentioned in the promoter's note. That piece of land is known as Shelley Sands. Does the Bill cover Shelley Sands? If it does, it is a legitimate matter of concern for us this evening. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of an apparent dispute about the ownership of Shelley Sands? I have seen the deeds, titles and the correspondence between the local authorities and the people who contest that the port authority involved in the Bill has a right to that land. Is there a dispute? Will the courts have to decide it? Is there any uncertainty about that piece of land?

Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to answer that. Under the section 52 agreement, the company handed over the Shelley Sands area of the basin to the East Devon district council. There can be no dispute about it. The company was quite willing to do so and that was part of the agreement in the planning application. I am glad that we have got rid of that problem.

Mr. Prescott: So that land is not covered by the Bill?

Sir Peter Emery: It is part of the planning application, but it is not dealt with in the Bill.
I apologise fo having detained the House for so long. I have tried to answer all the questions that were asked. If there are other questions, and I have no doubt that there will be, the right place for them to be asked is in Committee. As there are petitioners, the Bill will go to an Opposed Private Bill Committee and the Committee will examine it rigorously. I urge that the Bill be allowed to receive its Second Reading and proceed in the way that private Bills have proceeded for centuries since the first of these Acts, the Exmouth Docks Act, was introduced in July 1864. It should be brought to a determination sensibly and reasonably for the benefit of Exmouth and of everyone concerned.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) set out quite properly to make it clear to the House that he has no interest in these matters. I am sure that he meant also that his company, Shenley Trust Services has no involvement in the matter either.

Sir Peter Emery: Not at all.

Mr. Cryer: When the hon. Gentleman was referring to himself, I realised that he was referring to the company that he owns and controls, and of which he is chairman.

Sir Peter Emery: I want to make it clear that neither I nor any company with which I am associated in any way—minority or majority—have any interest in the matter.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I wish that other hon. Members were as frank and open as


he has been tonight. Sometimes, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, hon. Members who may be shareholders in a company maintain that that company's involvement in a certain matter does not involve them because their personal property is not affected. The hon. Member for Honiton has made it clear that neither he nor his company has any involvement in the matter under consideration today.
Although it may not be the hon. Gentleman's fault, I thought that the statement on behalf of the promoters was poverty stricken. The hon. Gentleman said that the company consulted the Minister to discover whether an order would be possible, and under that order a public inquiry would have been necessary.
I do not anticipate that a public inquiry would be confronted with a statement consisting of three pages of double-spaced typescript to substantiate the case. The promoters may argue that a procedure is available in the Opposed Private Bill Committee. I am not concerned about that procedure. I am concerned with the private Bill that is being dealt with on the Floor of the House, and that hon. Members should have access to the maximum amount of information to help them judge the merits of the proposal. Frankly, three pages of typescript, which is all that is available to us, is less than adequate.
I was interested to learn that consultations had been carried out before the Bill was promoted and that the company had approached the Minister and sought an order. However, during those consultations, were local trade unions involved? Trade unions are a very important part of our community, although the Government try to crush them. I believe that they should be consulted about major developments such as the proposal in the Bill because jobs are involved. If there was the potential for jobs, the trade unions would have wanted to know about it and perhaps would have encouraged the venture.
No doubt, if the sponsor could say that the Transport and General Workers Union and the General Municipal Workers Union had given unstinting support to the proposal, that would have been prayed in aid. It is not often that Conservative Members like to stand shoulder to shoulder with trade unionists, but there are occasions when that happens.

Sir Peter Emery: I am not the fount of all knowledge and I have had to consult about that. I am told that consultations with the TGWU did take place.

Mr. Cryer: I am pleased about that. I should be happier if I knew the outcome of those consultations.
Paragraph 5 of the statement on behalf of the promoters states:
Following the acquisition of the Company by its present owners efforts were made to revitalise the commercial life of the docks, in particular by the importation of animal feedstuffs—
and the hon. Gentleman elaborated on that.
I wonder who the new owners of the company are. All that we have been given is the name of the company. I have not had the time to ask the Library to dig out the names of the directors and their interests. If I knew that, it would help me to be convinced that the directors are interested primarily in transport and not in making a killing from an increase in land values. There is a suspicion that the company could have been taken over, not because the

directors were interested in developing the area as a dock, but because they were taking over an old company, with a relatively low capital value but which owned a large area of land, and because its potential value therefore far outweighed its actual capital value. If the planning consent was obtained and the dock transformed into a marina, hugely enhanced capital values could have been achieved for little investment—

Sir Peter Emery: rose—

Mr. Cryer: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished this point.
I can well recall that early in the 1970s my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I dealt with the Eastbourne Harbour Bill, which was of much the same character as this Bill. One of our arguments was: why is so much money available for the development of marinas when so little is available for the development of proper long-term jobs in manufacturing industry?

Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I simply want to provide him with information. He asked about the company that took over the ownership of Exmouth docks. It was a grain-importing company. It took over the docks so that it could import grain through that area for the rest of its business. That is the background to the company of which the hon. Gentleman has requested knowledge.

Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I should like further information. I should like to know whether the company feels the need to diversify into land. After all, that is the growth area of the present enterprise culture.
Page 2 of the promoters' statement reports:
The Company applied to East Devon District Council in February 1986 for planning permission to construct the necessary berths, but the Council informed the Company that it was strongly opposed to the proposed modernisation of the docks facilities and the application was withdrawn.
By a happy chance, a matter of a couple of years later—the date is not clear because we have not had sight of the report—some consulting engineers reported that the docks were in such a seedy condition that
certain of the dock walls are unsafe, and could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles are used at the dockside.
I do not wish to cast a shadow over the consulting engineers, but that was a most convenient report because the argument about the massive investment that is required to restore a port that has been so arbitrarily closed to dock work rests on that very report.
One of my complaints about this procedure is that we have been given only a sparse amount of information. I am slightly surprised by that because the sponsor of the Bill is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure which, at this very moment, is considering private Bill procedure—

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman, who is very knowledgeable about the workings of the House, ought to know that the Select Committee on Procedure does not have any powers whatever in relation to private Bills. Our terms of reference limit us to dealing only with the public Bill procedure. We have nothing to do with private Bills. The hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. Cryer: I am pleased to hear that the Select Committee on Procedure is not considering the private Bill procedure, which is certainly the impression that is abroad


in the House. Knowing how well versed the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure is in the promotion of private Bills, I must advise him that the House expects the maximum possible information. We have certainly not been provided with that tonight.
As I said, that engineering report is crucial—because the promoters have suggested that the cost of restoring the dock facility would be about £1 million and that a further £1 million would be required for new machinery.
Other courses of action may well be necessary. The alleged danger of the docks at the moment—the fact that certain dock walls could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles were used at the dockside—might be a bald statement and might not reflect the position in 70 per cent. of the port. We do not know—it might apply to 80 per cent. of the port.
I digress to give an illustration. In the early 1960s two or three of us went walking along the then closed British Rail branch line from Keighley to Oxenholme. We examined the track and the bridges. We thought that the line could be made into a viable proposition. However, some people said, "Oh no, you cannot run a railway without ripping up all the track, cleaning and renewing the ballasts, replacing it or adding new ballasts, levelling the track, tamping it and all the rest." They said that some of the bridges needed renewing. Over the years since we opened the line on 29 June 1968, we have taken some track out of use and have done that work.
I use that as an illustration of the dangers of following such reports too closely. A couple of civil engineers gave us reports of great gloom and doom. One of them said that we would need £1 million to reopen the line. That demonstrates that if one considers an issue in different terms, one can produce a programme that does not require the investment to be made all at once. It is possible to plan a programme of renewals that can be implemented over 20 or 25 years. The service—in this case a dock—could still be operated to 50 or 60 per cent. of capacity, perhaps rising to 70 or 80 per cent.
We must ask: what proportion of the dock walls is unsafe? As the port is not working at full capacity, the dock walls that are unsafe may not be needed in the operation of the port. We simply do not know.
I am simply a Member of Parliament carrying out my job of scrutinising private legislation. It might be an unfortunate procedure—it was the procedure under which all the railways of this country were built—and it has unsatisfactory aspects, but as we are using that parliamentary procedure, we have the right to know precisely what is involved in the application. However, we are not being given the necessary information.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) recalls that I asked the hon. Member for Honiton some questions at the beginning of the debate. If the information had been deposited in the Private Bill Office while the hon. Member for Honiton was elaborating on the promotion of the Bill, I should have been able to have a quick look at it. It is a matter of great regret that that information is not available.

Mr. Prescott: On the contentious matter of the consulting engineers' report, which stated that the walls were not safe and that the docks should be closed, I understand that some of the objectors asked for the report, but were denied it. I do not know who was given the report

—perhaps the Exmouth authority or the Devon authority was given it—but those whose livelihoods were at stake were entitled to ask for the full report on which they could make a judgment. As I understand it, they did not receive it.

Mr. Cryer: That is interesting information. I wonder whether copies of the report were available for the consultations with the Transport and General Workers Union. As my hon. Friend knows, that union and others have always assisted in planning for the future development of their areas. That is a characteristic of the trade union movement, although it is often not recognised.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend is putting questions to the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery)—or Botswana or whatever it is called these days. I saw the hon. Gentleman nod and wink to the people who are responsible for the Bill. If my hon. Friend were to hang around a bit longer—and I am sure that he has a lot more to say—he might see a message being passed from the promoters' representatives to the hon. Gentleman to enable him to answer questions. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he play the game. He should ask questions fairly slowly and deliberately, and intersperse them with the necessary arguments. The hon. Member for Honiton, in his state of health, cannot afford to keep running over to the promoters' representatives for answers. My hon. Friend must have a lot of questions to put to the hon. Member for Honiton, as, apparently, have other people. Wearing another hat, he has been asking questions at another level. This private Bill procedure is very murky. We know that these matters should not be dealt with on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend should give the hon. Gentleman some time to get answers. I want to know the answers, as does everybody else in the Chamber, including those in the Gallery.

Mr. Cryer: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I raised the question of this report right at the beginning in order to give people time to provide the information. It is outrageous that people should come to Parliament for powers to close a dock, and expect to get those powers on the basis of two and a half pages of double-spaced typescript, with no report on the case on which the whole argument hinges—that the dock has to be closed as parts of it are unsafe. We are not told to what extent traffic is affected. We are not told whether the whole dock, or half of the dock, is affected. We are not told whether the dock could carry on at 50 per cent. capacity. I say to the promoters that this is not the way to go about things.

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend should bear in mind a point that has been made to me by people down in that area. The authority in east Devon has changed its position as to whether legislation should have to pass through the House before the granting of planning permission in respect of dock land. I think that the words that are now used are something like, "use their best endeavours". The reason given for the change was that several Members of the House of Commons are rather awkward about private Bills. Because of that awkwardness, promoters cannot be assured that they will have Bills passed by the House. I do not want to burden the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) with unnecessary journeys across the Floor of the Chamber, but we must have answers to the questions that we put quite legitimately. The hon. Gentleman has a


problem because a few truculent Members of Parliament do not co-operate. The point that my hon. Friend has been making is substantial. Where is the consultants' report? Hon. Members need to see that report before they can judge whether the process of closing the dock should be started.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is quite right. Parliament would be a poorer place if it did not have a few truculent, investigative Members. Actually, it would be best to deal with this matter by public inquiry. Such an inquiry would be presented with rather more than two and a half pages of double-spaced typescript. At inquiries, people produce great quantities of documents to substantiate their cases. Inspectors call for information, and witnesses are cross-examined. Anybody who treats Parliament as being less important than a public inquiry is just asking for trouble. Happily, there have always been dissident Members of Parliament who do not say simply, "Private business. It is time to be off. We do not have to be bothered with it." There are Members who take an interest in private business. It is all a matter of priorities in the expenditure of public money. It seems that making money is regarded as more important than making machines. That is why this country has a balance of trade deficit of £20,000 million. The Eastbourne harbour syndrome has been going on too long.

Mr. Skinner: I do not like my hon. Friend's reference to truculent and dissident Members of Parliament. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know only too well, I am against the private Bill procedure. The whole thing stinks. It is about a few people coming here and making money on the side. These moonlighting Tory Members of Parliament have pocketfuls of money. Nearly every Tory Back Bencher has about five moonlighting jobs. We heard the other day about all the money that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) had received from Blue Arrow. He said that he had given it back, that it had been returned.
My hon. Friend and I are exposing this business of making money. Tory Members do not mind what they do. They put people out of work; they close docks; they bring South African coal in through the Humber ports. They do not give tuppence for Parliament. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) is Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, yet he is in the middle of it. So I will not have this reference to dissident Members of Parliament. I come here to protect the public purse. I do not believe that public money should be spent in this way. The hon. Member for Honiton has problems—his Tory colleagues have deserted him. I do not know why. This must be a very murky business. Normally, one or two little Tory bootleggers trot between the promoters and the hon. Member who is presenting their case. The hon. Gentleman does not have anybody to do that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Briefly.

Mr. Skinner: The Bill is brief, and it is very costly. Every line in it will make a packet of money—probably for the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Peter Emery: Wait a minute.

Mr. Skinner: I do not know—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: I am just checking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not casting aspersions on another hon. Member. That would be quite out of order. Secondly, his intervention has been quite long enough. I hope that he will clarify his remark.

Mr. Skinner: If the hon. Gentleman is disclaiming today, then he is disclaiming today. If he is disclaiming today, one has to buy it. But that does not mean that I will buy it tomorrow.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will satisfy me that he was not casting aspersions on the honour of another hon. Member.

Mr. Skinner: Let me make it absolutely plain. If the hon. Gentleman says that he has nowt to do with this Bill, that he is just sitting there for the good of his health—

Sir Peter Emery: The good of my constituents.

Mr. Skinner: If the hon. Gentleman satisfies you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you want to buy it, that is okay by me. All that I am saying is that my hon. Friend must expose the private Bill procedure. Somebody has to do it. Somebody has to stop this evil practice. It has nothing to do with Parliament. We should not be debating these things at all. It is high time that they were dealt with properly under local authority planning procedures. The local communities should be able to play a part—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall begin to forget who has the floor. Mr. Cryer.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend makes some useful and cogent points. On the matter of dissident Members of Parliament, we are in agreement. Dissident Members of Parliament are those who challenge the received ideas about which my hon. Friend has been talking. One of these received ideas is that Members of Parliament may have jobs outside. We are full-time Members of Parliament, and that is a matter that could be taken to heart by many Tory Members.
To pursue the question of the information which has been provided, I have not yet finished commenting on the engineers' report. The hon. Member for Honiton said that this is a Committee point, but Opposed Private Bill Committees are not like Standing Committees where questions are argued, amendments are tabled and hon. Members can demand reports. The proceedings are conducted by lawyers who receive expensive fees for presenting a case. Happily, I have never been on an Opposed Private Bill Committee and I do not wish to serve on one, I hasten to add. Hon. Members who have served on them tell me that they get a strong impression that the lawyers are paid by the hour and spin things out.

Mr. Prescott: By the word.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend says that they are paid by the word. There is not much opportunity for hon. Members to sift through engineering reports. The engineers' report is pivotal to the Bill, but the Committee stage will be conducted on the basis of submissions, so there will not be an opportunity for detailed examination. Questions may be asked, but the procedure is based on the


position of the petitioners. Hon. Members do not undertake the examination. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Honiton that the procedure is satisfactory.
In paragraph 9 of the promoters' statement—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Cryer: I shall proceed with the question of the five petitioners after this intervention.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has talked about the Opposed Private Bill Committee procedure and said that it is not like other Committee stages. He talked about lawyers making pocketfuls of money. There is another serious consideration. My hon. Friend should explain at length what the Bill is about. An Opposed Private Bill Committee is composed of two hon. Members from the Government side and two from the Opposition side. The chances are that there will be a Tory Chairman who will have a casting vote, so there will be three votes against two. A recent private Bill, the Associated British Ports Bill, was in Committee for some 20 days. Throughout the proceedings the Chairman cast his vote against every amendment. My hon. Friend is well versed in those matters. He knows what happens when a Bill is not amended in Committee. There is no Report stage on the Floor of the House and it goes through like a dose of Epsom salts.
The hon. Member for Honiton talked about a Committee point, but my hon. Friend will not get a chance to raise it in Committee. My hon. Friend cannot serve on the Opposed Private Bill Committee because he has already played a part in the proceedings. Therefore, he cannot speak in Committee. If the Bill is not amended, because the hon. Member for Honiton's Tory Friends defeat every amendment, there will be no Report stage and the Bill will go straight to Third Reading when it comes back to the House. It is an evil system. My hon. Friend would do well to spell it out.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has, as usual, made a cogent, relevant and emphatic intervention. I well remember the Associated British Ports Bill. Unfortunately, there were no amendments to the Bill, so it went straight through. As I recall it, it was on that Bill that the promoters, P and O, arranged a champagne supper to keep Tory Members here.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is a stickler for the truth, so I want to put him right. Yes, there are usually champagne parties organised to keep Tory Members here to vote the legislation through at the appropriate time, be it 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock or midnight. The champagne party to which my hon. Friend refers was on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, whose aim was to put money into the pockets of those who wanted a port system on the other coast.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying miles away from the Bill before the House.

Mr. Skinner: I appreciate that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Skinner: People are bound to get excited sometimes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is quite enough for an intervention.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has made another relevant and cogent point. He is correct. That champagne party was not arranged for the Associated British Ports Bill; it was for the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. My hon. Friend is pointing to the fact that the Government have used the private Bill procedure to get legislation through and we have been inundated with private Bills, so much so that Associated British Ports, Felixstowe and champagne parties blur into one another. The hon. Member for Honiton has made it clear that there are no champagne suppers for this Bill. I suspect that that is why there will not be too many hon. Members here this evening.
I was about to deal with paragraph 9 of the promoters' statement. The hon. Member for Honiton explained that there were five petitioners. He said that fishermen have withdrawn their petition because they have had a legal, binding assurance. I should like to know what a legal, binding assurance is. An assurance does not normally vary legal weight. If something has legal validity, there has to be a means of applying it. Have the fishermen entered into a legal agreement with the company? Will there be a breach of contract if the company fails to honour its commitment?
An assurance is not a guarantee. It is just a claim that people will do their best. They give an assurance that something will be all right but that assurance does not provide the sanction of court action, which I should have thought was necessary to ensure that the fishermen had a guarantee, not just for the next five years, but for as long as fishing is to go on in the area. There should be a restrictive covenant on the building of the marina and a means of enforcing the covenant.
As the marina has not been built, I should like to know what provisions will be made. When the hon. Member for Honiton sums up, I should like him to tell us what he means by 'legal, binding assurance'. I do not want the fishermen of Exmouth to be sold short. I am concerned about them.

Mr. Prescott: I refer my hon. Friend to the note that we have been given on behalf of the promoters. In it they say: the dock walls are unsafe, and could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles are used at the dockside.
The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) made the point that agreement had been reached with the fishermen who originally were not to continue their activities at the dock. We are all pleased to hear about the agreement. The hon. Gentleman also said that there would be refrigeration work; one assumes that heavy vehicles and machinery will have to be used in that work. There seems to be a conflict. If the fishermen are to continue their commercial activity, presumably lifting machinery and heavy vehicles will be necessary. That seems to be in conflict with the whole point of the debate—that the walls are unsafe for any commercial activity.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important point. I was coming to it in a moment. Of course, there will be the refrigeration facility that the hon. Member for Honiton mentioned. There may be a restrictive covenant on the land on which the refrigeration facility is to be built to ensure access from the estuary and from the land. There must be some guarantee for the future. My hon. Friend is right in his more general point on paragraph 8 of the promoters' statement. If a refrigeration facility is to be provided, heavy plant and equipment will be needed on the dock to provide it. There must be lifting machinery to move the fish from the boats


on to the dockside and into the refrigeration plant, and the refrigeration plant must be substantial. All that must mean building, machinery and heavy vehicles on the dockside. My hon. Friend is right to point to the discrepancy.
The engineering report is crucial. It is curious that, just when the planning application was rejected and it was decided that a marina was the way forward, a report was produced which matched the case and helped to support the argument that it would cost millions of pounds to retain the dock facilities and that something else should be established.
That type of procedure helps to convince, among others, trade unionists. When workers are presented with a claim that there is a report and they do not see it, they should always double-check. The lesson for trade unionists is, always check what the employer puts forward. They may have been told that a report has been produced showing that the docks cannot work again because it would cost too much to make them work. The report being so pivotal to the argument, its absence makes me doubt the validity of the company presenting the matter to us. It shows contempt for our procedures and for Parliament.

Mr. Prescott: The more I listen to my hon. Friend and the valid points he is making, the more I am reminded of a further contradiction, which the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) might wish to clarify. Its seems curious that an examination was undertaken which led to the conclusion that the dock walls might collapse.
The company made an application in the mid-1980s to the East Devon district council to modernise the docks so that they could deal with even bigger vessels, plus the construction of some riverside facilities. Surely engineering work must have preceded that application and should have revealed problems with the sea walls. To find those problems being revealed now is a little coincidental.

Mr. Cryer: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is curious that the undertaking of the report, although not its publication, should have assisted the company in presenting its argument. My hon. Friend is right to say that applying for planning permission involves submitting documents about what will be done and where. That should have involved a detailed examination of the circumstances in which the docks would be built. That, in turn, should have brought to light the condition of the dock walls. Apparently, it was overlooked.
One is bound to question the competence of the company in going ahead with a planning application to seek consent, having apparently overlooked a serious engineering defect, yet that defect suddenly comes to light two years later, when it is thought that a marina would be a better alternative. That calls into question the bona fides of the company in bringing the matter to Parliament without providing us with the information we need.
Unsatisfactory though the private Bill procedure may be, when we have discussed other Bills, the promoters have taken the trouble to circulate us with information and deposit plans in the Private Bill Office. No such efforts have been made in this case.

Mr. Skinner: Promoters of private Bills of this type do not always provide the necessary information and plans. We had a similar problem recently, when the promoters of the Redbridge London Borough Council Bill did not even

provide a map. This place is treated with contempt because the Tories, having a majority of 150, say, "We will use the private Bill procedure. We will not need every Tory Member to back it. Only perhaps 200 Members will be needed, including 100 for the closure motion."
We now know why the Tory Whip, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), came into the Chamber while my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) was speaking. That Whip, an important member of the royal household, must have asked the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), "When will you want me?" He was saying, in other words, "Under the private Bill procedure, forget about free votes and voting according to conscience. When do you want me? When shall I bring the troops in to bring debate to an end?" 
That is how the system works, and it is high time we did something about it. Let us stop this farce by which people give the impression that a matter is being brought to Parliament and is being dealt with by us, with every word—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is long enough for an intervention.

Mr. Cryer: Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover makes a cogent, important and relevant point. I noticed the oleaginous figure of the Tory Whip, the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), enter the Chamber. As my hon. Friend says, he is organising matters.
We do not have the report of which I have spoken, because somebody has told the promoters, "Don't bother with the report. It could be a bit controversial. Different interpretations could be put on it and it might be said that dock work could proceed at Exmouth. But don't worry. All is organised. We have told the lads that they will be needed at 10 o'clock. They will come in then and vote." That is why the Whip came into the Chamber. Every now and then he comes in to check how things are going.
So my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover hit the nail on the head. This scrutiny is a facade and a formality. The Tories are using their majority as an elective dictatorship, a phrase used by Lord Hailsham when the last Labour Government had a tiny majority, if not a minority.

Mr. Skinner: We had a majority of one—Stonehouse—and we could not find him.

Mr. Cryer: Even though we did not have a majority, Lord Hailsham called us an elective dictatorship. Now that the Conservatives have a majority of 150 over Labour, the noble Lord says nothing.
Private Bills are supposed to have a separate path in Parliament. They are supposed to go through on a free vote, with independent scrutiny. It would be appalling if the Government used the private Bill procedure to impose their wishes on Parliament in contravention of tradition. But that is what they are doing, and the public outside are appalled. That is why they gave a massive thumbs down to the Tories at Mid-Staffordshire and why at the next general election the Tories will be run out of office.
The five petitions deposited against the Bill are detailed in clause 9. I have dealt with the position of the fishermen, and I look forward to the comments of the hon. Member for Honiton relating to so-called legally binding assurances that the marina will be open to fishermen in difficulties. The hon. Member for Honiton seemed to


qualify the circumstances in which it would be open to fishermen in trouble. I should have thought that human compassion would have provided that guarantee, but a company that is seeking to convert a dock into a marina cannot be assumed always to have human compassion at the forefront of its thoughts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East spoke about the loss to Exeter of £168,000 a year in dues, due to it as the navigation and river conservation authority. I should have thought that £168,000 in dues suggests a fair amount of traffic. The hon. Member for Honiton said that arrangements are being made by the company to allow the petition of Exeter local authority to be withdrawn. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East then asked him what the present position was. He could not say, because a committee of Exeter council has yet to meet to discuss the position on the closure of the docks and loss of fees. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to correct me, he should intervene.

Sir Peter Emery: I just wish to make certain that the hon. Gentleman understands the position. A recommendation has been made by a committee of Exeter council which has to go forward for confirmation. That will happen on 2 April. But the council is agreed that the petition should be withdrawn. I am simply giving the facts. That is the position with the Labour-controlled Exeter council.

Mr. Cryer: I wanted to confirm that position. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will realise that one of the glories of democratic procedures is that one is never sure of the outcome. We cannot guarantee the position at this stage, but we can expect a certain decision to be made. None the less, my argument is that Parliament should know that decision before it considers the Bill. It is an outrage that we are considering the Bill when committees have yet to meet and decisions have yet to be made. We cannot know the decisions, because the timing is wrong.

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Member for Honiton has put one construction on events, which is not a complete construction. He says that it is a Labour-controlled authority. That is true. I hope that many more areas, including Honiton, will be Labour come the next election.
I chose to speak to Exeter council. It was maintaining an objection to the Bill. It was told that, as East Devon district council had withdrawn the stipulation that the Bill was a first condition before it could agree to any commercial activity on the dock, all that was now required was best endeavours. The legal advice secured by the company was that it did not need the Bill.
Exeter city council was faced with either coming to a deal and obtaining compensation—I believe of the order of £70,000 for one year but it would be left with the bill after that—or proceeding with a legal action against the company. The cost would then fall on the ratepayers. We know that, when anyone goes through the courts to obtain an agreement, it is highly expensive. The agreement arrived at left Exeter with little choice once East Devon district council took its decision.

Mr. Cryer: It sounds as if the agreement is force majeure. It is blackmail, which I shall come to later. It sounds as if Exeter council has virtually been blackmailed into accepting the decision. It is all linked up with these best endeavours—the phrase used to cover the fact that it

was just conceivable that the Bill would not slide through the House like a dose of salts. That is an unscrupulous attitude. It makes our procedure simply a facade. Either we have power or we do not. It must be made absolutely clear. Either we are dealing with the granting of powers to close the dock or we are not. If the Bill is superfluous to requirements, it means that there is some skulduggery at work.

Sir Peter Emery: rose—

Mr. Skinner: Let skulduggery speak.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Honiton wish to intervene?

Sir Peter Emery: It was just that I heard certain comments which obviously did not reach you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
May I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I read to the House earlier? It is not a matter of best endeavours. The letter from East Devon district council said:
I can confirm that the Council's Planning Committee has given planning permission for the redevelopment of the Exmouth docks for a marina, together with the associated residential development, subject to formal closure of the docks by the necessary legal process".
That is not a matter of best endeavours. It refers to the Bill currently before Parliament. I read that letter to the House an hour ago. I am sorry if I was not clear, but that was the letter dated 23 March 1990 and signed by the chief executive.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for interjecting. The problem is that a statement has been provided by the promoters for Members of Parliament. It says:
The council is, however, concerned to ensure that the docks will be permanently closed to commercial traffic and, as part of the planning process, is requiring the Company to do its best to procure the enactment of the Bill, which would guarantee that the docks may be so closed.
That is a statement in support of the Bill. I assume that we must take it at face value. It is the basis of at least part of the debate. The hon. Member for Honiton is saying in effect that that statement is otiose and irrelevant because the local authority has said specifically that it requires consent to close the dock from a private Bill process in the House.
Why on earth was a supplementary statement not issued by the promoters, based on the information that the sponsor has given to the House tonight? We are bound to question the whole nature of the statement. What other parts are not quite right? For example, the statement said:
Consulting engineers have reported that certain of the dock walls are unsafe, and could collapse if heavy machinery or vehicles are used at the dockside.
Will we receive another statement that says, "That is not quite right because we have had a letter from the company that says that the dock walls could be unsafe, but we are not quite sure"?
We cannot ignore phrases in the promoters' statement. We must challenge and examine them. The hon. Gentleman is within his rights to say that the local authority has put a different emphasis on it. We must inevitably put a question mark where we have two conflicting statements from the same source, both of which apparently seek to promote the Bill. The hon. Member for Honiton will at least agree that it is confusing.

Sir Peter Emery: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is confused; he is usually too intelligent to fall into that trap. Best endeavours are being made to put the Bill through the House. That is normal and proper phraseology. If the hon. Gentleman considers it inadequate, I went further, to find out what it really meant to East Devon district council. I see no conflict in best endeavours being used. That is what I am doing. I am doing it not for the company but for my constituents. Therefore, I am making absolutely clear what East Devon district council says. Surely that is the information that the hon. Gentleman wants; it gives him the assurance he requires.

Mr. Cryer: There is clearly a gap here. The promoters could have used words such as "the local authority requires the company to procure the enactment of the Bill." The qualifying phrase, "to do its best" is not needed. If I examine the words carefully, it is because for years I have been a member of the Select and Joint Committees on Statutory Instruments. Words have importance in the delegated powers that Ministers use when issuing rules and orders.
Very often the careless use of words gives rise to court actions. That is why I examine words scrupulously. It is confusing for the promotors to use words in one way and then for a different emphasis to be provided by the Bill's sponsor, the hon. Member for Honiton. We should avoid such confusion, as we need the case to be clear and unambiguous, especially when so much information is not provided to hon. Members, but we are expected to make a judgment.

Mr. Prescott: This point is vital. I pushed the Exeter authority on why it changed its position. It is clear that something material changed in order for it to withdraw its objections. It was not simply that it would receive compensation of £70,000.
I talked to the legal advisers of the authority, who made it clear that things had changed with regard to the East Devon council. I was told that section 52 of a certain planning agreement was important to East Devon council, as it laid down that no more commercial development and housing would be developed on the dock should any plan be proposed. That was a proper concern, and the council wanted to be satisfied about that requirement. Just a couple of weeks ago, however, things changed, and we are now talking about best endeavours.
The information supplied by the promoters relates not only to best endeavours but to the company's ability to procure the Bill
which would guarantee that the docks may be so closed".
How often have we debated the words "may" or "should"? They are at the heart of our legislative process. There is no doubt about what the promoters mean, as that is consistent with what I was told at Exeter. That information, however, seems to contradict what the hon. Member for Honiton has described as the position of East Devon council.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has thrown some light on a confusing position. We have not yet received a satisfactory answer. The promoters speak of actions that
guarantee that the docks may be so closed.
We insert the word "shall" in primary legislation if we want something to be mandatory. We are now supposed to be dealing with such a mandatory decision, since we are not talking about a casual alternative to be available at

some stage in the future when the company so wishes. The company has made an application to close the docks permanently after the temporary closure which it brought rapidly and arbitrarily to the port of Exmouth.
We are right to question what lies behind this Bill. It is not an inexpensive procedure to come to the House. Why are the promoters not saying that the company shall procure the closure powers? Why are they hedging it? It must be costing them thousands of pounds to come here to do all the preparatory work. Promoting private Bills is an expensive procedure, not a casual hobby. Why should people undergo such a procedure when they do not appear to be convinced of the need to undertake it in the first place? 
If the information in the promoters' statement had been widely circulated in the area earlier, there might have been more petitioners. Five petitions alone have been deposited. I have already mentioned the fishermen, and I do not believe that the guarantees that they have received are satisfactory. We have already spoken about Exeter losing £168,000 per annum in dues. It is clear that there is some money connected with the dock, and it is not entirely without trade. The dock handled about half a million tonnes of goods a year, so it has had some traffic, which is important to remember.
Mrs. Susan Winters feels that her livelihood has been taken from her, and she is perfectly entitled to petition. Mr. Stephen Lytton, a former assistant pilot, wants a settlement. It is argued that he cannot be given a settlement different from other employees, as the redundancy terms have already been agreed and the company cannot go beyond them. The Committee stage of the Bill would enable Mr. Stephen Lytton to present his case, but if he is unemployed, how will he be able to afford to get down to London? I do not know the financial position of Mrs. Susan Winters, but she must come down to London to make her case.
Most of the petitioners want to employ a brief, but they do not come cheap. They are much more expensive than people who do useful jobs, such as engineers, social workers, nurses or firemen. They cost a great deal more—we are talking about fees of hundreds of pounds a day for a lawyer.

Mr. Skinner: It could cost thousands of pounds.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right, because if one employs a barrister one must also have a solicitor.
All the lawyers on the Tory Benches—they are not here now, of course, as they are resting after their activities in court, having picked up thousands of pounds in fees—will go into the Lobby after the recess to vote for the continuation of the duopoly between solicitors and barristers. Those self-same lawyers went through the Lobby to attack the trade unions because they claim that they do not like a closed shop. However, they will merrily vote to continue their own closed shop, and seem to be able to satisfy their consciences in so doing.
The people who have made petitions against the Bill will face a considerable expense in coming down here to represent their case. That is unfair.

Mr. Skinner: It is an ill wind that blows no one any good. My hon. Friend has already pointed out that only five petitioners have come forward because the scheme was not well advertised down there. This "Howard's Way" scam has been spread around the harbour and the docks.
Given that the Bill might now receive some publicity in the Devonshire press, there is a slim chance that more petitioners will come forward. They might be able to get together to come down to the Committee to petition.
My hon. Friend has performed a useful service tonight, because we are now depending on the local press—no doubt some of them are hostile to the scheme—to use some of my hon. Friend's comments to get the mass army of non-poll tax payers from Devon, who are against the "Howard's Way" scam, to come to Parliament to petition in greater numbers.

Mr. Cryer: I hope that that is the effect of the debate, because it would be a great pity if people living in Exmouth who wish to oppose the Bill lost the opportunity because of a shortage of money. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is right: by emphasising the circumstances, we are hopefully providing those people with a public service.
There was an interesting exchange earlier, when the hon. Member for Honiton talked about a complaint that he had had concerning the dock's activities. Because of the research carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, it turned out that some of the complaints arose because the dock company was not doing very much, for example, to suppress the dust caused by its activities. Is it possible that the same dock company that produced the report—which was so convenient, but which was not sent to hon. Members or published—was not doing very much, because it wanted to create as much strife and nuisance as possible, so that people would say, "For goodness' sake, close the port down, if you can't cover the dust or make the thing more quiet and effective"? That is a real possibility: certainly it has been done before to achieve the desired result.
As for the benefits for Exmouth, I am all in favour of benefits for all parts of the United Kingdom, but we must know who the benefits are for. Will they be for the company—the owners of which we do not know—or for the ordinary working men and women of Exmouth and their families? Will this be simply a device for converting land that has a use to the community and to the nation as a dock to an area where land values can start to soar? 
The company directors may feel that grain is not a profitable activity, and decide to go into land. They will sit in their detached houses in the better part of Exmouth—or wherever they live—and watch the price of the land rise, without doing anything.
That is not uncommon. In many areas, local entrepreneurs have established factories making useful products such as lathes, milling machines and diesel engines—there is a long history of it; I can name the companies involved—but their sons decide that they do not like soiling their hands with industry. They then sell out—especially if the factory has an enhanced land value—buy a farm in Sussex and live the life of a country gent. That is not unknown. However, such family businesses—which are much hailed by the Conservatives—may have no sons to carry on the trade, and the daughters may not want to do so. Therefore, they sell up and start another life that they regard as superior to the values that form the basis of employment prospects in our country.

Mr. Skinner: Is my hon. Friend saying that closing down the docks and releasing land is perhaps only partly about building a marina? Is the marina a disguise, enabling the land to increase in price and the owners to sell it off for

yuppie houses? If there was a marina, perhaps it would be only a relatively small one that would not take up all the land, and a big killing could be made by selling that land. Is my hon. Friend's interpretation that there is money to be made out of the price of the land, and that the marina is just a hook to hang it on?

Mr. Cryer: That is an interesting development of my thoughts. We are dealing with people who abandon useful activities that benefit the community and the nation. Those activities include providing employment, importing and exporting goods and maintaining the traditions of expertise and handling that have been built up over the years, with sons following their fathers into the docks and maintaining their expertise and knowledge. When all that is swept to one side by people who think only of making money, and not of maintaining a facility that is of great utility and benefit to the community, anything is possible.
The marina may be a sprat to catch a mackerel, and companies may have realised that they have to convince the local authority—even a Tory-controlled one—that they will bring a definite benefit. Therefore, they say "What about a yuppie marina?" There are only a few houses round about—not too many. There are problems with the marina, so they decide to make that tiny, fill in the rest of the land and develop it as a huge housing estate with enormously enhanced land values. I raise those matters simply to point out that we do not have the necessary information to make the sort of informed judgment that we should.
Interestingly, there was an affirmation of the importance of maintaining and developing traditions. Mr. Steven Spielberg, the noted film maker, spends millions of pounds making films which have attracted a substantial following. He invests a lot of money making them. When the closure of Elstree studios was being discussed, I asked Steven Spielberg why he came to this country to make films; after all, Hollywood is the repository of great traditions and expertise which have been built up over the years, provide a large part of television viewing and have a worldwide reputation. He said that it was because the craftsmanship in the United Kingdom at Elstree and Pinewood was better.
Steven Spielberg did not come here because of the dollar-sterling ratio, but because of skill and tradition. The crews in British studios contain an age range because the older members carry on and hand over the expertise to the younger members and the level of experience is maintained. In Hollywood the older members simply leave for other jobs and the average age of camera crews, set dressers and prop builders is much younger.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has a real feel for the subject, does he not?

Mr. Cryer: The answer is yes.
Every job is important, quite apart from the glamorous nature of film and television, although not all of them are given the degree of importance and emphasis that they deserve. However, the same sort of expertise and tradition is necessary to enable them to carry on. There is a real question mark over the pattern of employment available in the area.
The hon. Member for Honiton quoted from paragraph 10 of the promoters' statement which said that new job opportunities would be created. However, he did not say how many, which is crucial. Will they be equivalent to the


number of people who worked in the docks—or will there be more or less? What sort of jobs will they be? Will they be in the leisure and tourist industries much beloved of the Government? 
The invisible earnings about which the Government so often boast are becoming invisible because there is a deficit in invisible trade. Will the jobs created be in tourism? That sector of employment is badly organised, generally poorly paid and does not have the sort of career development of many other occupations. We have gained our position as a nation, not through subservient jobs such as waiting on tables, but through jobs which added value to materials such as steel and wood.

Mr. Prescott: What is wrong with waiting on tables?

Mr. Cryer: There is nothing wrong with waiting on tables. It is a perfectly good job, as dignified as anything else. But there is a limit to the development of the skill and its application, whereas manufacturing has a much wider range.

Mr. Skinner: You have been in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ever since I have been here for the debate, but we are in some difficulty now because the so-called sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), is no longer present. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has been asking questions from time to time, and that is fair enough. Some the hon. Gentleman has answered, some he has not, some he cannot, and some he has plainly not wanted to answer because they were too difficult. But in view of his absence, can we proceed any longer? He has done a runner. Of whom can my hon. Friend ask questions? Will the Minister take notes on his behalf? If he does, he will turn the Bill into a Government Bill. There is a real problem here, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you have consulted the Clerk on it, but nobody who is in favour of the Bill is in the House to answer the questions that my hon. Friend is asking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for me, and if he keeps on interrupting he will put the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) off.

Mr. Cryer: It will take a good deal more than my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover to put me off. Members of Parliament have the important job of scrutinising legislation. My hon. Friend's interjections are the result of his anxiety to carry out his duty as a Member of the House to scrutinise legislation. I have been speaking for rather longer than I intended because of the number of interventions.
The hon. Member for Honiton has sought to give me information and my hon. Friend is right. I am deeply dismayed that the hon. Gentleman is not here. I wanted to ask him about the number of jobs that will be provided. That is crucial. When the hon. Gentleman was present I said that I would come on to paragraph 10 in the promoters' document which refers to benefits
not only to those who have in the past suffered from the effects of the dock's commercial operations, but also to the town of Exmouth as a whole".
Those benefits should be quantified much more accurately. The sponsor's speech was mostly a series of platitudes,

claiming that the Bill would be of benefit. If we are to authorise the closure of the docks and their replacement with a marina in which a great deal of money would be invested, we should have much more information about how that would benefit the town. That is one of the most important aspects in obtaining consent for the legislation.
I am sure that if the hon. Member for Honiton had given us an account which, as the lawyers say, demonstrated beyond peradventure that there would be benefits in the form of good jobs with training and prospects which would give satisfaction and pleasure to those who undertook them, we should have been only too anxious to see the Bill through. But we have not even been told how many jobs will be created.
I would have welcomed any proposal from the company to create a number of jobs and to encourage manufacturing. I know that manufacturing is not a high priority in the enterprise culture, except when it is imported from Japan. The Government sit back and say, "We do not have to invest in research and development or factories; we do not have to encourage people to invest, as the last Labour Government did through the ferrous foundries scheme, the wool textiles scheme and half a dozen other schemes, because the Japanese will come over and provide the factories." But the Japanese also provide the design and the technology. It is a step towards an economy in which we shall become a nation of assemblers and warehouse keepers. We need an economy with an important manufacturing component.
The hon. Member for Honiton has not demonstrated that the Bill will provide permanent jobs. There will be building jobs for building the marina. No one would deny that they are important, but there would be building jobs if the company decided to rebuild the dock walls and purchase machinery for the dockside. One would hope that such machinery would be bought in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Skinner: While my hon. Friend has been speaking I have been reading the Bill. It says nothing about providing jobs. My hon. Friend has a document which refers to various jobs, but does it add up to a row of beans? We are considering the Bill. My hon. Friend can have all the documents that have been dished out and the hon. Member for Honiton can make a speech about jobs, but the Bill is about closing the docks. It says nothing about providing jobs. I return to my original point. The chances are that the Bill is about making money out of land, closing the docks, concreting them over and making a big fat killing. The marina has been brought before the House as a possibility and no more. What does my hon. Friend have to say about that?

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right. I have in my hand not the Bill but the promoters' statement. I was analysing that statement. My hon. Friend is quite correct to draw attention to the fact that we are not examining the promoters' statement; we are being asked to pass the Bill. The powers are contained in the Bill, not in the promoters' statement. The promoters' statement is designed to encourage us to pass the Bill. My comments on the promoters' statement go back to the Bill.
There is absolutely no reason why the Bill cannot contain a commitment, although that would represent a legal obligation, to provide jobs. That is not extraordinary. In France, under successive Governments, not just that of


Mitterrand, which was not very Left-wing, but under Christian Democrat and Socialist Governments there has always been legislation ensuring that no person can be sacked for economic reasons without the consent of the employment Minister. The Labour Government should have introduced such legislation. We should have introduced much more legislation to provide workers' rights. We should have legislation equivalent to that in France, but we have not.
We can have legislation that provides for employment, and my hon. Friend is right to say that the Bill contains no such provision. We are providing the power for closure and concreting over for a range of alternatives about which we are not sure and we have not been provided with much information.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend agrees with me that we are considering the Exmouth Docks Bill which would close the docks and no more. He has a bit of paper that has been passed along from the promoters. It contains a lot of inaccuracies and innuendos. That document could be similar to the Al Fayed document; it could be packed full of lies. That is what they did when they got hold of Harrods. They had a little document—a bit of paper that did not add up to a row of beans. The document that my hon. Friend has must be examined very closely. I reckon that we have to concentrate on the fact that the Bill is talking about losing jobs, not creating jobs.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Bill does not mention jobs—

Sir Peter Emery: Jobs cannot be included in the Bill.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Honiton says that jobs cannot be included in the Bill. The point that I am making is that legislation in France protects jobs. We could easily follow France's example. Why cannot the docks company set a pioneering trail? People would come from all over the country to see how it worked. Instead of sitting on its backside watching land values increase—Labour Members suspect that that is its intention—it could give a commitment to provide jobs.
Jobs are important. There are almost 2 million people unemployed in this country, according to the Government's dodgy figures, which have been fiddled more than 21 times, and under the old figures probably almost 3 million. It is important to consider legislation that affects jobs.
We may be misjudging the docks company. Tory legislation in 1981 removed grants aimed at ensuring that dock companies kept docks as docks and did not turn them into marinas or other yuppified pursuits. The Harbours Act 1964 provided grant aid for dock work improvement schemes, but it was repealed in 1981. We no longer have a scheme to encourage the company to provide the dock work facilities or career opportunities that must have existed for years in Exmouth.
A number of my hon. Friends wish to express their concerns about the Bill, so I shall conclude by commenting on the speech of the hon. Member for Honiton. He said that if the docks company is not allowed to proceed with the marina and land development it may consider importing coal.

Sir Peter Emery: I did not say that.

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Honiton says that he did not say that, but that was the general tenor of his remarks. It seemed to be an attempt to blackmail the House into giving the Bill a Second Reading. It leaves a rather nasty taste in my mouth that an hon. Member should say to the House, "If you do not pass the Bill, something will happen to which you are deeply opposed." The hon. Gentleman may not have intended to imply that, because he knows that such a threat would be a matter for the Select Committee on Privileges.

Mr. Prescott: Not the Select Committee on Procedure?

Mr. Cryer: No, that would not be fair. I know that the hon. Member for Honiton would not want to become involved in such an argument, so I shall push that to one side. We should not entertain for a moment any threat of that nature from the company, the local authority or the sponsor, who did not really mean it in the first place.
The promoters have not made the case for the Bill. I have great reservations about it. The Bill does not guarantee jobs or anything except the closure of a dock that has already been closed. If the company has to seek authority to close the dock and if it does not receive it at some stage, it must have an obligation to open the dock. If not, why does it not just let the grass grow over and leave things as they are? The Bill seeks to remove an obligation from the docks company and we should be slow to agree to that. The sponsor should take back the Bill and talk to the trade unions to see what they think. He should amend the Bill before it is submitted again so that there is guaranteed employment. It should be decent employment, not routine labouring jobs with no prospect of developing manufacturing enterprise.
The promoters should ensure that they do the job properly, that they consult adequately and that they give guarantees about employment. They should also give a guarantee that Exeter city council does not have to foot the bill resulting from the decision of the docks company to close the dock. The Labour-controlled local authority—about which the promoters probably do not care—should not be left having to make up the money lost from the closure of the dock. It is clear that I have reservations about the Bill and I shall not give it my support.

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): It may be helpful for me to give the House the Government's view on the Bill. It is traditional for the Government to take a neutral stance on a private Bill and this Bill is no exception. The Government have considered the contents of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers being sought by the Exmouth Docks company. To obtain the powers, the company has no recourse but to promote a private Bill, as I shall explain.
As the House has heard, there is an alternative procedure provided for harbour authorities to obtain authorisation for the interference with private rights by means of a harbour revision order under the Harbours Act 1964. The Act also makes it possible for harbour authorities instead to resort to the private Bill procedure. The Exmouth Docks company applied in July last year for a harbour revision order under section 14 of the 1964 Act to permit it to close the dock to cargo traffic and to convert it into a marina. It was claimed that the order would have


been within the purpose of the Act because the conversion of the dock to a marina would have constituted an improvement.
However, I decided on legal advice last October that that would not be an improvement within the meaning of the Act and thus that an order for the purpose would not be lawful. It may be interesting to note in this context that the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which has been referred to this evening, recommended that the permitted scope of orders under the Harbours Act 1964 should be broadened to allow general powers to be included for a wider range of developments to be authorised. The Government are considering the Committee's report and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President of the Council hopes that it will be possible to announce before long how he intends to take the matter forward.
It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers that they seek are justified. There are three petitioners remaining against the Bill and they will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Committee. The Committee will be in a far better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill—

Mr. Prescott: The Minister has explained precisely what the Department's role has been in the matter and how it considered whether the company could be given an order under the 1964 Act. As he said, the conclusion was that it would not be lawful under the interpretation of the Act. A Department of Transport press statement on 26 October 1989 said:
Mr. McLoughlin has decided that an order for this purpose would not be lawful, therefore no public inquiry will be necessary.
The explanatory note to editors makes it clear that the Government and the Minister took the view:
This would not be an improvement within the meaning of the Act.
Does that mean that the Government do not consider that the change of use from a commercial dock to a marina is an improvement? Will the Minister confirm that? Has he received any requests from the dock company for financial assistance to help with its safety problems?

Mr. McLoughlin: I cannot add to what I have already said. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is not usual for Ministers to disclose legal advice that they have received. If I had pursued the other procedure, there would have been cause for a public inquiry. As the hon. Gentleman said, I announced on 26 October that we could not follow that route, so, as I explained earlier, this private Bill procedure is the only recourse for the company.
I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading to allow it to proceed in the usual way to a Committee for more detailed consideration.

Mr. John Prescott: Many of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) merit answer; we would want to reflect on them before we vote on the issue.
The Minister's response highlights the difficulty that we face with private Bills such as this. We face the ever increasing practice of various port authorities of different kinds coming to the House to request the power to change their constitution in one form or another. The common factor binding those authorities is that they have discovered that a land bank is involved in docks and harbours. They realise that, if the rules and constitutional practices can be changed by closing the dock or changing the trust arrangements, a considerable amount of wealth can be acquired by developing the land.
That is obviously quite a proper consideration. Some people may believe that profit should be made from developing marinas and land. However, the Opposition are worried about port development. We want to ensure that Britain has an adequate port network, particularly as we are an island nation. The central argument is whether it is necessary to accept the judgment of the company that the port is no longer necessary and is unsafe and the company does not have the resources to meet the safety requirements for the port to carry on as a commercial enterprise.
The company's conclusion was not helped by the Government's early actions in port policy in the early 1980s when the Government removed powers to offer assistance to port authorities to make ports safe. The removal of the Government's role in those matters has complicated the issue. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) has had the privilege of seeing the consultants' report to which he referred. However, Opposition Members have not seen it and I know that some of the objectors have not seen it either. All they have seen is the three-page statement.

Sir Peter Emery: The report was seen by the East Devon district council and by Exeter city council. Therefore, it is not fair to suggest that the report has been kept secret.

Mr. Prescott: I said that a number of the objectors have not seen it. The hon. Member for Honiton referred to the objectors and referred to the fishing industry and the individuals. I had thought that the Tory party was concerned about individuals. It is the individuals who will be losing their jobs. The council will not be put out of work.

Sir Peter Emery: Only two.

Mr. Prescott: It is all very well for the hon. Member for Honiton to say that there are only two. There were 4,000 objections to the proposal, and there is a dispute. The hon. Member for Honiton knows better than most of us that there is a dispute in his area. He knows that there is a controversy over whether the docks should be closed and changed from a commercial operation as a port to a marina and profitable housing development. That is a matter of contention, as the hon. Gentleman knows; I have visited his constituency, and I am aware of it as well. About 4,000 people signed a petition—

Sir Peter Emery: In Exmouth?

Mr. Prescott: Well, I do not know whether the hon. Member for Honiton has walked along the dockland area—

Sir Peter Emery: I have.

Mr. Prescott: Yes, I am sure he has, but perhaps he met different people from those who came to me to protest. He knows that there has been correspondence complaining about this in the local papers. He knows from his files that there are divided views about the dock. I shall come to that in a moment, because it is an area in which any Member of Parliament has a legitimate interest. We must represent those constituents who live by a dirty dock and who legitimately complain to their Member of Parliament in an attempt to seek redress for those complaints, either through the public health authority, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, or through another forum in the hope of ensuring that better circumstances will prevail.
At the heart of this argument is the mixing of commercial activity and housing, some of which is historical—although much of the housing must have been developed after the dock was opened, because the dock has been around for a long time. As I understand it, East Devon district council had a legitimate concern about changing its position on the laying down of conditions on housing developments in the dock area. It had to be satisfied that it did not have a commercial claim on the operation of the dock. I know that the council was concerned about the files of letters that it had received—no doubt from the hon. Member for Honiton—about whether a commercial dock activity should continue in the area. There are legitimate concerns about that and about the environment that is directly affected.
I stress my earlier point that, over time, I have noticed more and more private Bills being introduced which ask the House for permission to change, for example, the purpose and operation of a dock. Indeed, only two weeks ago we considered the Tees and Hartlepools Port Authority Bill, which sought to change that port authority from a trust authority into a private company. That issue arose because a lot of money was tied up in trust arrangements that had been settled many years before, and, by law, the company was denied the right or the possibility of using that money for other purposes. It therefore decided to change its constitution. Again, that was a controversial matter about which legislation was brought before the House. We have not seen the last of port Bills coming to the House, asking for the privilege either of changing the law—by changing the original legislation—or of introducing a new Bill that would change the obligations of the existing port company.
At the outset, the hon. Member for Honiton asked whether we were concerned about the points raised by the Select Committee on Procedure in relation to the avoidance of planning inquiries. That is a legitimate concern, on which a Select Committee of this House has expressed its view. Those concerns are shared by hon. Members of all parties. However, as the hon. Member for Honiton himself said, that is not the case with this Bill. We are concerned about docks which, in some cases, have been in operation for hundreds of years and about the fact that their owners or operators decide that they want to change the terms of operation. We are concerned to establish whether the House has a legitimate right to examine such Bills and to decide whether the operators are making a legitimate request to change the character of a certain port.
The Exmouth Docks Bill seeks to provide that Exmouth docks will no longer operate as a commercial port. That means that shipowners and others who have access to those commercial port activities will no longer have the rights that were given them under the old

legislation. The Bill seeks to change the port into a marina with dock housing. The development will basically be concerned with leisure activities.
However, the hon. Member for Honiton has now pointed out that fishing activities will continue in the area. We should like some answers on fishing, because we now know that those who had fishing rights—and those with trawlers who were allowed to land their fish—will be allowed to continue with those activities. As we have seen some movement on that matter, I am sure that the House will rejoice that some objectors whose livelihoods had been threatened have found some satisfaction.
As I understand it, when the proposals were first put forward, those people were told that they should go to another port if they wanted to continue with their fishing activities. I am sure that, like other hon. Members, the hon. Member for Honiton will welcome that move. We are glad that some satisfaction, however marginal and whatever the circumstances, has now been achieved by some of the objectors.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we welcome the retention of fishing at Exmouth, the legal assurances that the promoters have explained are their guarantee that nothing will change in the future have not been spelt out? We really ought not to be overjoyed until we have been told exactly how the legal assurances will operate.

Mr. Prescott: That is a matter for concern. I see that the hon. Member for Honiton wants to give us some satisfaction on that point. I am delighted to give way to him.

Sir Peter Emery: If we had not had a speech lasting an hour and 33 minutes, I might have been able to give this information earlier.
The fishermen are protected by a condition under the planning consent and by an agreement under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, both of which are legally enforceable.

Mr. Prescott: I hope that that will satisfy the fishermen. After all, they are the best judges, as I think hon. Members will recognise. The memorandum provided by the promoters says that the real concern is the safety of the dock. It is argued that the walls can no longer take the weight of heavy lorries or heavy machinery. But we have been told that freezing operations will be carried out at the dock.
Anybody who has been involved in the fishing industry, especially anybody who knows anything about freezing, realises that this operation involves the use of heavy lorries, heavy equipment and heavy warehouses. Are the promoters satisfied that the walls of this dock are strong enough? Would it be safe to carry out this commercial operation? If the walls are strong enough, I am confused as to the purpose of the Bill. Admittedly, the legislation has been put forward in a rather rushed form. We are told that the dock is no longer safe—so much so that commercial activities could cease at the end of December.

Sir Peter Emery: I shall try to assist the hon. Gentleman, as I have tried to do throughout the debate. Refrigeration operations will not be carried out at the dockside. In fact, the facility will be just away from the dock, in an area that would not be affected by the collapse of the dock walls. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the


equipment required for unloading small fishing vessels is very different from that which is needed to unload commercial bulk cargoes. The fishermen are satisfied that the guarantees that have been given, which are legally enforceable, are adequate.

Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. As I come from a fishing port, I am a little troubled. I assume that the situation in Exmouth must be similar to that in Hull.

Sir Peter Emery: No.

Mr. Prescott: In the respect that I have in mind, the docks are similar. I refer to the fact that trawlers tie up alongside the walls. I do not know that trawlers could tie up in any other way. The hon. Gentleman says that the warehouse will not be at the dock, and that the walls will not have to withstand the weight of heavy lorries, but it is admitted that the walls are not safe. They might collapse under the weight of a heavy lorry, or they might collapse anyway. It is generally admitted that the walls are unsafe. I assume that that is still the position.

Sir Peter Emery: I have no wish to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that the reinforcement that will be necessary for the marina will make Exmouth suitable for small fishing vessels. The hon. Gentleman's reference to trawlers shows that he does not understand the offshore fishing industry at Exmouth.

Mr. Prescott: I have been on that part of the coast, sailing and diving, and I have seen the vessels to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As he knows very well, I have actually been photographed on the dock. I have talked to the fishermen and looked at the facilities. That does not alter the fact that the central point is that the dock is unsafe. That is why it has been closed, why people have been made redundant and why the port authority says that it cannot continue commercial operations.
I take the point that apparently the dock authority is prepared to carry out the necessary work, but it only wants to do the work that is necessary to make the dock safe to build a marina and housing. I understand that 440 houses are planned. I read in the press that they are to cost £120,000 each; I do not know whether that is true. We are talking about a lot of money. It seems that money can be provided for work on the docks to provide a marina and housing, but not for commercial activity. It is not that the company has not got the money; it just wants to use the money for a different activity.
Each time we go through the argument, different conditions are made. I was under the impression that it was difficult to improve the dock and that the company did not have the money. Now we learn that it will come out of the leisure development. As is often the case, leisure developments provide more money than commercial activity. That is the argument here, that people want to make more profit from a marina and housing instead of carrying out the dirty work of a commercial port.

Mr. Cryer: There is an interesting thought. Perhaps the repairs should have been carried out under the legislation that established the dock, or under the Exmouth Docks Act 1870. Perhaps the company should have done the repairs and should be carrying on work as a dock. If the

company has come to us for approval of closure, it must have been incorrect in closing the docks without our approval.

Mr. Prescott: That point should be borne in mind. It is causing confusion. The argument is that the company suddenly discovered that the walls were unsafe, despite the fact that it made an application in 1985 to extend the dock for more commercial activity. One would have thought that the weakness in the dock walls would have been discovered then. The assumption is that the company has only discovered the weakness in the walls; how convenient that the discovery was made after the Minister told the company that it could not pursue its proposals by order under the 1964 Act.
It is interesting to note that, if the change in activity could have been pursued by an order rather than by a private Bill, it would not have cost the company anything. The Government can bring in an order to change the use from a commercial dock to a marina. One can see why people want to pursue that course. They do not need lawyers; they just ask the Government to do it and it does not cost them a penny. It costs plenty to bring forward a private Bill, involving legal advice and a parliamentary agent. Everyone knows that it is an expensive business. We have read about it in the reports of the Select Committee on Procedure.
I hope that the hon. Member for Honiton is listening. I know that he is being pressed on all sides by people seeking his advice—

Mr. Skinner: He is trying to organise two tellers.

Mr. Prescott: I do not know whether tellers are involved. We will have to wait and see whether the Government will organise support, as they do in so many of these cases.
Is the hon. Member for Honiton aware of the information that I have received from people in the area, that an application to develop housing was made not only just after the company found that the dock walls was unsafe? According to the information given to me, the company has made applications over the years for housing, but they have been refused. If that is correct, it did not happen when the company found that it could not operate a commercial dock because the walls were unsafe. It always wanted to develop housing.
The company which owns the dock has its own development company. Some of the directors on the board of the dock company own the development company which is making the bid for the development. The general view is that they have always wanted to change from dock activity.
Continuing that theme, it is possible within a few years, if there is a refusal to allow housing development, to make a public nuisance of the dock, so that eventually people demand that the dock be closed. The owners in that situation do not tidy up the dock but leave it scruffy, with the maximum dust and dirt. Lorries are allowed to stand around the dock area, so that people complain about them. That is not unique to Exmouth. Action of that kind is taken in many dock areas in Britain.
In other words, we are not discussing the fact that it cannot eventually be used as a commercial dock. The owners want to develop it for houses and so on, and they have wanted to do that for some time. I am sure that the hon. Member for Honiton has files about that, spanning a


number of years. I thought that it was a dirty terrible dock. The fact that the company was prosecuted shows that it was not too concerned to clean it up.
The company wants it to become a public nuisance. It wants the public to clamour for the dock to be closed, because it is more profitable to develop a marina and housing. It is more profitable for the yuppies in London than for people who want to live and work there, dockers and others involved, such as shipping agents. I am talking of the ones and twos, as the hon. Member for Honiton contemptuously described them. We are talking not of ones or twos but of thousands of people who have protested and written about this matter.
The facts that I have given put a different complexion on the application that is before the House. Should the dock be closed because it is unsafe? It always was the considered intention of the family who owned it to close it. They wanted to do that not simply for the development of the dock. Apparently they wanted to use it for a massive development, of which there have been reports, involving much more than we have heard.
I am told that the dock company wishes to sell the dock to invest the rollover money in a golf course, a restaurant and a leisure complex on Woodbury common. May we be told more about that? This is the first stage of a massive development in the area, and it has always been the intention to undertake such a development. All the arguments about it being an unsafe dock and so on have the objective of making more money from the development of a marina and housing.

Sir Peter Emery: If the hon. Gentleman is making a serious rather than a nonsensical point, he might have examined the capital expenditure and repairs and renewals expenditure over the period to which he is referring. In the last four and a half to five years, over £1,593,000 has been spent—hardly the expenditure of people who are planning to waste the dock or put it into a useless situation. Please let us leave emotion out of this. The people of Exmouth want the improvements, and the hon. Gentleman should remember that.

Mr. Prescott: It is not unknown for me to become emotional. On this matter, the hon. Member for Honiton is clearly emotional. He is talking of people who are planning a development that will cost £63 million, so £1 million is chickenfeed compared with the money that will be made out of the development. In any event, it might take the sum he mentioned to keep the dock legally in line with work that must be done.
We have been told that the company wanted to do additional development, and that is a legitimate point to make. The company asked for permission to develop the riverside facilities almost opposite what is known as Shelley beach. East Devon district council was not prepared to permit plans that mixed housing and dock development, which is a reasonable point of view.
Is it suggested that that meant the end of the dock because it would be closed to traffic? The hon. Member for Honiton said that trade had been stabilised and that it was not a growing dock. If he knew anything about dock traffic, he would know that it fluctuates. The figures of movements must be taken over a number of years. He made a good point when he said that, over five years, the movements had stabilised at 500,000.
The trend of what has been happening to the docks shows that in 1978 it had 279 vessels going through it. By 1988, it had achieved 532 vessels. An awful lot of vessels were coming in. In 1978, the total traffic was 158.000 tonnes. The hon. Member for Honiton gave even later figures than I had; he gave figures for 1989. By his own admission, the total traffic had grown to 523,000 million tonnes by 1989. We cannot accept his argument that somehow the increase in traffic was due to the coal imported during the miners' strike. Presumably, the dock does not import as much coal as it did. The port is growing, with ever more ships coming into it and more trade.
What alarms me is that, for the first time, an application has been made by a port authority to close a port that is growing, not one that is dead. We often have legislation to close ports that are dead. We have far too much port capacity in this country, and we have to close some of it. Sometimes it is necessary to come to the House and apply for permission to do so. That is not the case here. We are faced with property developers who want to close an expanding port, not a declining one. Many people in the area feel that the port is absolutely necessary.
When the hon. Member for Honiton gave us some explanations earlier, he said, "Why should Exeter be an objector?" He said it almost with contempt, because, as he threw in, it is a Labour council. He did not want to consider the arguments. He did not seem to be aware that Exeter city council is the navigation authority. It has responsibility for maintaining navigation lights and all the facilities on the river. That is why it imposes a levy on the ships. The levy that it received—the hon. Gentleman said it was £160,000—goes towards financing that.
If the council loses that money, as it clearly will next year, where will it find the extra money? Either it will take it from Exeter residents or from yachts that ply up and down the river or it will increase the charges or cut the costs. Either way, Exeter is not in a happy position.
All that Exeter has done is obtain an agreement that half the money—about £70,000—will be paid over to it. It is a raw deal for Exeter. Someone will have to pay for the navigational lights; they must be maintained even if only one yacht goes up and down the river. Exmouth port authority has relieved itself of the burden by simply shifting it on to the Labour council. That does not seem to worry the hon. Gentleman, but even in that area there will be Tory ratepayers, and they will pay the difference. I hoped that he might be worried about that because they will have to finance the charges.

Sir Peter Emery: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 16.

Division No. 149]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Atkinson, David
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dover, Den


Boswell, Tim
Durant, Tony


Bowis, John
Emery, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Favell, Tony


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Burt, Alistair
Fishburn, John Dudley


Butcher, John
Fookes, Dame Janet


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forth, Eric






Freeman, Roger
Norris, Steve


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Patnick, Irvine


Gill, Christopher
Patten, Rt Hon John


Gorst, John
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Squire, Robin


Hunter, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stevens, Lewis


Irvine, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Jack, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Janman, Tim
Thurnham, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Lawrence, Ivan
Walker, Bill (T'Side North)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Warren, Kenneth


Lightbown, David
Wheeler, Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


Mills, Iain
Wood, Timothy


Moate, Roger
Yeo, Tim


Morrison, Sir Charles



Neubert, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Roger King and


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Mr. Jacques Arnold.





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Beckett, Margaret
Murphy, Paul


Boateng, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Prescott, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Sheerman, Barry


Dewar, Donald
Vaz, Keith


Dixon, Don



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Livingstone, Ken
Mr. Bob Cryer and


McFall, John
Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Mr. Speaker: Fewer than 100 Members having voted in the majority in support of the Question, I declare that the Question is not decided in the affirmative.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 19 April.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

PART IIA: SEIZURE AND DETENTION OF DRUG TRAFFICKING CASH

`(1) A customs officer or constable may seize and, in accordance with this section, detain any cash which is being imported into or exported from the United Kingdom if its amount is not less than the prescribed sum and he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that it directly or indirectly represents any person's proceeds of, or is intended by any person for use in, drug trafficking.
(2) Cash seized by virtue of this section shall not be detained for more than forty-eight hours unless its continued detention is authorised by an order made by a justice of the peace or in Scotland the sheriff; and no such order shall be made unless the justice or, as the case may be, the sheriff is satisfied—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion mentioned in subsection (1) above; and
(b) that continued detention of the cash is justified while its origin or derivation is further investigated or consideration is given to the institution (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) of criminal proceedings against any person for an offence with which the cash is connected.

(3) Any order under subsection (2) above shall authorise the continued detention of the cash to which it relates for such period, not exceeding three months beginning with the date of the order, as may be specified in the order; and a magistrates' court or in Scotland the sheriff, if satisfied as to the matters mentioned in that subsection, may thereafter from time to time by order authorise the further detention of the cash but so that—

(a) no period of detention specified in such an order shall exceed three months beginning with the date of the order; and
(b) the total period of detention shall not exceed two years from the date of the order under subsection (2) above.

(4) Any application for an order under subsection (2) or (3) above shall be made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or a constable if made to a justice or magistrates' court and by a procurator fiscal if made to the sheriff.
(5) At any time while cash is detained by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this section—
(a) a magistrates' court or in Scotland the sheriff may direct its release if satisfied—

(i) on an application made by the person from whom it was seized or a person by or whose behalf it was being imported or exported, that there are no, or are no longer, any such grounds for its detention as are mentioned in subsection (2) above; or
(ii) on an application made by any other person, that detention of the cash is not for that or any other reason justified; and

(b) a customs officer or constable, or in Scotland a procurator fiscal, may release the cash if satisfied that its detention is no longer justified but shall first notify the justice, magistrates' court or sheriff under whose order it is being detained.
(6) If at a time when any cash is being detained by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this section—

(a) an application for its forfeiture is made under section (Forfeiture) below; or
(b) proceedings are instituted (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) against any person for an offence with which the cash is connected,

the cash shall not be released until any proceedings pursuant to the application or, as the case may be, the proceedings for that offence have been concluded.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

FORFEITURE

'(1) A magistrates' court or in Scotland the sheriff may order the forfeiture of any cash which has been seized under section (Part IIA: seizure and detention of drug trafficking cash) above if satisfied, on an application made while the cash is detained under that section, that the cash directly or indirectly represents any person's proceeds of, or is intended by any person for use in, drug trafficking.
(2) Any application under this section to a magistrates' court shall be made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or a constable and to the sheriff by a procurator fiscal.
(3) The standard of proof in proceedings on an application under this section shall be that applicable to civil proceedings; and an order may be made under this section whether or not proceedings are brought against any person for an offence with which the cash in question is connected.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 3

INTEREST

'. Cash seized under this Part of this Act and detained for more than forty-eight hours shall, unless required as evidence of an offence, be held in an interest-bearing account and the interest accruing on any such cash shall be added to that cash on its forfeiture or release.'.—(Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 4

PROCEDURE

`(1) An order under section (Part IIA: seizure and detention of drug trafficking cash)(2) above shall provide for notice to be given to persons affected by the order.
(2) Provision may be made by rules of court with respect to applications to any court under this Part of this Act, for the giving of notice of such applications to persons affected, for the joinder, or in Scotland sisting, of such persons as parties and generally with respect to the procedure under this Part of this Act before any court.
(3) Subsection (2) above is without prejudice to the generality of any existing power to make rules.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 5

INTERPRETATION OF PART IIA

`(1) In this Part of this Act—
cash" includes coins and notes in any currency;
customs officer" means an officer commissioned by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under section 6(3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979;
drug trafficking" has the same meaning as in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 or, as respects Scotland, in Part I of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987;


exported", in relation to any cash, includes its being brought to any place in the United Kingdom for the purpose of being exported;
the proceeds of drug trafficking" has the same meaning as in the said Acts of 1986 and 1987 respectively and includes proceeds received by any person before as well as after the coming into force of this Part of this Act.
(2) In section (Part IIA: seizure and detention of drug trafficking cash) above "the prescribed sum" means such sum in sterling as may for time being be prescribed for the purposes of that section by an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and in determining under that section whether an amount of currency other than sterling is not less than the prescribed sum that amount shall be converted at the prevailing rate of exchange.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that notwithstanding sections 8 and 9 of the Isle of Man Act 1979 references in this Part of this Act to importation into or export from the United Kingdom include references to importation into the United Kingdom from the Isle of Man and exportation from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 4

UNITED KINGDOM EVIDENCE FOR USE OVERSEAS

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 4, line 29, at end insert—
`(2A) Where it appears to the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Lord Advocate that the request relates to a fiscal offence in respect of which proceedings have not yet been instituted he shall not exercise his powers under subsection (2) above unless—

(a) the request is from a country or territory which is a member of the Commonwealth or is made pursuant to a treaty to which the United Kingdom is a party; or
(b) he is satisfied that the conduct constituting the offence would constitute an offence of the same or a similar nature if it had occurred in the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 25

EXPENSES

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 18, line 20, at end insert—
`(2) Any money representing cash forfeited under Part IIA of this Act or accrued interest thereon shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Title

Amendments made: No. 3, in line 2, leave out second `and' and insert
`; to enable the United Kingdom'.
No. 4, in line 5, at end insert
'; and to provide for the seizure, detention and forfeiture of drug trafficking money imported or exported in cash'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I have no wish to delay the House on this important Bill. I sometimes wonder whether, now that the House is televised, we should have a barometer of the cost of keeping the House running at this time of night and evaluate speeches in terms of the cash that it costs the taxpayer to pay for keeping the House running. That would probably have a good influence on our speeches.
It is important for us to make one or two points on Third Reading. First, the Government have—this is quite a change from usual—acceded to several requests that we made in Committee. That is a mark of the fact that the Bill received all-party support and, for a change, in Committee received a positive response from the Government. The tightening up of legislation, as represented by the new clauses, has been a result of the Government listening to the Opposition case which was made reasonably cogently in Committee. We are pleased to have the changes to the Bill and new clause 1 is of particular relevance and importance.
We have supported the Bill for the simple reason that it will help the forces of law and order in Britain to combat international criminality of every kind, whether it be drug traffickers, money launderers or violent gangsters. They are serious matters. If it allows us to accede to two important international conventions and makes it easier for the Government and for future Governments to chase international criminals wherever they may be and bring them to justice, this small Bill, which has all-party support, will be worth while.
However, we would have liked the Government to have taken a firmer line on one aspect. The Government still seem to believe that the City of London and, to some extent, the international banking community based in London, is a sort of gentleman's club with values and principles in accordance with which everyone acts.
We said in Committee, and we remind the House tonight, that completely unscrupulous forces are at work in the City of London and in the international banking community. I do not make that charge about every banking institution, nor even about most banking institutions, but the Government should wake up to the fact that a marginal group of people in the banking industry do not care from where the money comes or where it goes. The laundered money that keeps this wicked business going internationally is still moving round the City of London.
In the coming months, scandals about international involvement in money-laundering schemes in the City will come to light and the Government will have to come back to the House to take more measures to deal with them. I make that point in all seriousness. When that happens I hope that my remarks on Third Reading will be remembered.
When the Bank of England gave evidence to the Select Committee it was asked what measures it would introduce further to curb the ability of banks to launder international drug money, to which the Bank of England said that it did not have any positive ideas. The Select Committee said that that was not good enough and that it was the Government's job to tell the Bank of England that they knew what was going on, that they wanted it stopped and that they wanted the mechanisms by which that could


be done to be introduced quickly. The Bill gave us the opportunity to tighten up even more on such trade, but it has not been taken.
I reiterate that the Opposition believe that in the near future scandals and revelations will make us take seriously what is going on in some institutions, albeit marginal ones. These are serious matters in terms of the amount of money involved and we shall have to take further steps to control those institutions.
As I said, if we had a barometer to show how much each speech cost, we might make shorter speeches. I do not intend to detain the House any longer on a Bill which has the Opposition's full support and which will lead to the apprenhension of more criminals and international drug traffickers.

Sir John Wheeler: I, too am glad to give the new amendments to the Bill a very warm welcome. Like the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I hope to be brief.
The new amendments will certainly help to bring the United Kingdom law into line with article 5 of the Vienna convention. The new amendments are most timely as the ministerial conference on drugs takes place in April, when I am sure that the United Kingdom intention to strengthen the law will he regarded as a welcome example by other countries and their delegates attending that conference.
My Select Committee is always pleased when its recommendations find currency in legislation so speedily. The House will know that the Home Affairs Select Committee reported on 8 November last year and I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his willingness to follow the Select Committee's recommendations and amend the Bill.
During its visit to the United States last year the Committee was most impressed by the evidence from the officials of the various services concerned with drug trafficking and money laundering. The United States customs service argued persuasively that there was a serious loophole in British law, which enabled cash to be moved in and out of the United Kingdom. Evidence from the United Kingdom customs, the Metropolitan police and the national drugs intelligence unit confirmed that loophole.
For those reasons, the Select Committee made clear recommendations to make it illegal to import or export the proceeds of drug trafficking or other serious crimes and to allow customs officers to detain money entering or leaving the country if they knew or suspected that it arose from the proceeds of such crime.
I am glad, therefore, that the Government's new clauses seek to deal with those loopholes. We shall have to experience the exact way in which the legislation will be enforced, and it would be helpful if my right hon. Friend made some comment on that.
Tonight's proposals apply to the proceeds of drug trafficking and not to cash or money from other offences that can be seized within the United Kingdom under part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I invite my right hon. Friend to consider extending those provisions to non-drugs money laundering. I congratulate the Government on introducing the new clauses, which I warmly welcome.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I, too, congratulate the Minister on accepting the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who is the Chairman of the Committee. The Committee's work on drugs and the evidence that we took, particularly in America because of the problems there, were extremely valuable in terms of our recommendations.
However, I want to sound a couple of notes of caution. The first concerns the relationship between the police and the customs service. In paragraphs 103 to 105 of our report, we emphasised the need for close co-operation between the police, the customs and the regional drug squads. It is extremely important that we monitor carefully the way in which those provisions operate.
I am concerned at the number of complaints that I have received from constituents about the way in which some customs officers operate. Constituents who go abroad wearing gold jewellery and return wearing the same gold jewellery are then told by customs officers that they had that jewellery made abroad, particularly in India or Pakistan. I hope that customs officers, having been given this new power, will exercise it particularly carefully.
I should like to bring to the Minister's attention the need to ensure that we place more emphasis on preventive work. The Bill is about international co-operation, but on its visit to America the Select Committee discovered that the American enforcement agencies made several mistakes, through no fault of their own, but simply because it was the first time that they had dealt with drugs such as crack. Our services made similar mistakes. The Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) have said that preventive work is being emphasised, but it is no good merely catching the international criminal and seizing the proceeds of his crime—we must work to ensure that demand reduction is a reality.
I have just returned from a brief visit to India. The governor of Gujarat, which, as I am sure hon. Members know, has a long coastline and a common border with Punjab, is concerned that the international drugs trade is increasing from that area. Gujarat would like assistance from the British Government. We can offer our expertise in dealing with such problems and the lessons that we learned from the mistakes made by the Americans. It would be useful if the Minister mentioned to the Minister for Overseas Development the need to provide aid to support Governments who are trying to stop the flow of drugs.
I should like to see more emphasis placed on exchange visits for police and customs officers to America and the sub-continent so that expertise, which is vital in the fight against the drugs trade, is developed.
I read the Committee's proceedings on the Bill with much interest. The Committee stage was quick, but it showed that hon. Members are committed to doing all that they can to stop the spread of this obnoxious international crime.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: For some considerable time, the subject of drugs has been of much interest to the Council of Europe. On 29 January, a joint meeting of several committees in Strasbourg was


addressed by Margaret Anstee, who is the director-general of the United Nations' office in Vienna and is in charge of the war against drugs. It was one of the most fascinating but terrifying meetings that I have attended. Coldly and dispassionately, she told us of the growing drugs problem, which stretches way beyond the bounds of what any rational person would have thought possible. It certainly persuaded the Council of Europe to do more than it had already done.
Margaret Anstee's talk prompted me to table a question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which she answered on 9 February. I asked whether we will be able to ratify the 1988 United Nations convention. It is extremely important that we do so as rapidly as possible.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) said, a ministerial conference with a somewhat longer than necessary title—the world ministerial summit to reduce demand for drugs and to combat the cocaine trade—is being held in London on 9–11 April. My right hon. Friend the Minister knows that the Bill has received all-party support. The amendments that have been made tonight should command the full support of the other place. Does my right hon. Friend believe that it will be possible for Britain to ratify the convention before that conference takes place? It would be an enormous boost if we were able to do so, and a tribute to that dedicated servant of the United Nations, who is also a British subject.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to consider the future operation of the legislation in the context of 1992. The aim of the Common Market, which is not recognised here, but is recognised in the Strasbourg Assembly, is for the complete removal of barriers. Reservations have been expressed in the Trevi group of Home Office Ministers, but there is pressure from the Common Market to remove customs barriers. There is a group known as the kangaroo group because it wants to leap over barriers. Prominent members of the Conservative party support the kangaroo group. [HON. MEMBERS: "Kangaroo group?"] It is a suggestion of leaping over barriers. I know that it seems a strange description to the House of Commons, but it is a sign of the dedication to federal solutions which looms large inside the Common Market.
There is no point in passing legislation—with which we agree—to attempt to control drug trafficking while there are pressures to dismantle the very apparatus that helps to control that trafficking. New clause I, which provides the power for customs officers to seize cash which is believed to be the proceeds of drug trafficking or to be intended for use in drug trafficking, will, of course, be rendered null and void if we are not allowed to give those powers to customs officers in traffic between ourselves and the other 11 member states.
It is a matter of grave concern. The Government's reservations to the Trevi group of Ministers have never been spelt out. I fear very much that the insidious power of federalism will lead to the diminution of important safeguards for our country. I have always taken the view, and expressed it in the Common Market Assembly, that the notion there that a strong barrier round the 12 is in

some way a substitute for a number of barriers inside the Common Market is inadequate. A number of barriers around the member states are a far better deterrent than one big barrier.
I assure the House, without equivocation, that there is pressure for the single unitary customs union of the Common Market.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): indicated dissent.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): indicated dissent.

Mr. Cryer: I see that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are showing that they agree with maintaining barriers. I am pleased by that assurance, and I shall continue to seek such assurances whenever the subject is raised because it is important.
The seizure of even more dangerous items than drugs and associated facilities, such as the seizure of nuclear triggers by Customs and Excise yesterday—on which they are to be congratulated—is a sign that vigilance is required. I know that the triggers were destined for a country outside the Common Market, but the principle of surveillance and examination is the same and must be retained if the Bill is to be enacted properly.

Mr. John Gorst: The Bill's intention, which is wholly laudable, is to enable the United Kingdom to co-operate with other countries. We shall co-operate especially by serving other countries' legal processes, by obtaining evidence and by facilitating the appearance of British witnesses at court hearings. Those are unexceptionable objectives, but the ends must always be in harmony with the means taken towards their achievement and the ends do not justify the means in this case.
I have a crucial question for my right hon. Friend the Minister which hinges on the meaning of the word "person" in paragraph 4 of schedule 1. The paragraph says:
A person shall not be compelled to give in the proceedings any evidence which he could not be compelled to give … in … the United Kingdom".
However, that provision would not apply unless the claim of the person was conceded by the court in the foreign country. Can a certain type of Crown servant in this country, perhaps a police officer, be compelled to give evidence or, perhaps more pertinently, can he be prevented from doing so? 
The reason why I am concerned about that will become apparent if I describe what happened about three years ago in the case of Captain Simon Hayward, who was arrested on a drugs trafficking charge. That example will show that I am not voicing a simple theoretical concern.
In the criminal proceedings brought against Hayward in Sweden, the Swedish authorities sought to call two British police officers who were working at the time for the national drugs intelligence unit. They were to have given evidence on information that they had received from an unnamed criminal source in this country. However, the officers had visited Sweden earlier to collect intelligence. During their visit, they passed on certain police-to-police intelligence to the Swedes, and before they left the country, they lodged it with the Swedes in a signed memorandum.


Thereafter, the British authorities received a request from Sweden asking for the officers to give evidence at Hayward's trial.
I am glad to say that the then head of the national drugs intelligence unit, Assistant Commissioner Colin Hewett, took a highly responsible attitude. He informed the Swedes that he was not prepared to allow his officers to give evidence, because it was clearly hearsay. Moreover, it was evidence that would not have been admissible in proceedings if they had been brought in this country. To put an end to it, Mr Hewett added that neither of his officers could vouch for the truth and accuracy of their information.
Notwithstanding that, the Swedish authorities were still able to use the intelligence handed to them by the two officers. They merely informed the Swedish court that the officers would have said what was in their statements had they been called. As a consequence of those events, I am glad to say that the previous Home Secretary was sufficiently disturbed by what had happened to order an inquiry by the chief inspector of constabulary, which resulted in new guidelines for the police.
However, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State replies to the point about schedule I, can he tell me whether the changes that have come about with new advice to the police are reflected in the Bill, or can such disquieting anomalies be repeated? With the advent of much closer co-operation in international crime today, everyone applauds efforts to facilitate international co-operation in the investigation and prosecution of international criminals. Equally, no one would wish to make provisions in this country, about the admissibility of evidence in another jurisdiction. However, are proper safeguards incorporated in this Bill? Will they enable abuses to be stemmed in Britain before they can be enacted in other countries over which we do not have control? 
Does schedule I ensure that, before complying with a request for assistance, British courts will have to satisfy themselves that the witness from whom evidence is to be taken will only be providing evidence that would be admissible in our courts? Will the Home Secretary be able to get an agreement from a requesting state that the only evidence sought from witnesses from this country will be first-hand evidence and not, as happened in the Hayward case, second-hand evidence given by one person about what another witness might have said had that other witness turned up to give that evidence? 
Furthermore, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the provisions of the Bill will not become a charter for unscrupulous criminals to make wholly unfounded and, in this country, inadmissible allegations in front of foreign courts with the blessing, so to speak, in ignorance, of our own British courts? If so, they will effectively be turning a blind eye to what may happen afterwards, outside their jurisdiction.
Allegations could then easily be made against an innocent individual in the hope that those allegations might be relayed to a third party, who could then give evidence with impunity under the protection of foreign jurisdiction. Unless we are vigilant, there could even be the temptation for the authorities, on an international scale, to steer international prosecutions to those countries that are none too choosy about their methods, as long as they get convictions.
I should like my right hon. Friend to assure me that that will not be possible and that the Bill contains provisions to ensure that it cannot happen.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Some time ago it became apparent to the Government and to the Prime Minister in particular that they should do something about drugs. We all know that in this modern world the drugs problem has grown at a tremendous pace in some countries. In America, with a population of 200-odd million, the problem has grown much faster than here in Britain. It is now feared that the situation obtaining in America could occur on these shores; so it became a political issue.
Although I understand the motives behind it, I believe that the Bill is little more than cosmetic. I have no doubt that the Minister of State will explain all those good motives but, for the life of me, I cannot see how this kind of cosmetic can play a significant part, although I should like to think that it could.
I was talking to someone recently about the American situation. Its drugs problem has grown at a geometric rate. That person came over here only last week. He had retired after working in a college and was 60-odd years of age. When I asked him what the drugs problem was like, he said that as many as 30 per cent. of young people were on hard drugs. I asked him what was happening about that. He said, "Politicians stand up and make a lot of noise about doing something about it." 
The United States of America is almost equivalent to the Common Market in terms of population. What is being said today is that, if we join those other western democracies, we can somehow or another wave a magic wand and control all the laundered money that is made from drugs. Do not get me wrong—I think that that is a sound idea, but I need to be convinced about how, in a free enterpreneurial society, such as is rammed down my throat by Tory Ministers every day, those freebooted entrepreneurs who do not believe in controls of any kind can control the drug money when they do not even know where it is coming from.
It is a bit odd that that massive contradiction has not crossed the mind of the Minister of State, who reckons to be such a logical thinker. He is well endowed in the classics and all the rest of it—

Mr. John Patten: That is a smear.

Mr. Skinner: I am trying to get the Minister deselected.
Let us face it: if the Prime Minister says that she does not believe in controls of any kind, but on another day she tells her Ministers, "We'll control the drug money flow," that is a total contradiction. Much as I should like to see that happen, it can be achieved only if the Government have control of the banks. If the Prime Minister is going to come along and say, "We have a big drugs problem; it is not as big as in America, but we are going to control it and stop the money, and the only way of doing it is by controlling the banks first"—

Mr. Greg Knight: That is not in the Bill.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member, who, I understand, is prevented by convention from speaking, says that it is not in the Bill. I am not talking about what is not in the Bill;


I am talking about what is in the Bill. As it is a weak, cosmetic Bill, it is incapable of doing all the wonderful things that it is supposed to do.
Then there is the question of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS. Eventually the Government will decide to join the ERM. I want to make it abundantly clear that I shall vote against joining. I am not in favour of the free movement of capital and labour in the Common Market. Joining the exchange rate mechanism will not improve the lot of people who believe in collective action.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. This Bill does not say anything about the exchange rate mechanism. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that a Third Reading speech must be confined to the actual contents of the Bill.

Mr. Skinner: I do not want to teach grandmothers to suck eggs, but I have to point out that this Bill attempts to control the flow of money made in the business of drugs. The point that I am making is that this is a cosmetic exercise. Such control cannot be exercised in an entrepreneurial society. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will accept the logical extension of that point.
If the supporters of this Bill travel further down the entrepreneurial road of money exchange in a greater Common Market, the ability to control drug money will be diminished. I understand that contradiction, as do some of my hon. Friends. It may be that some Conservative Members agree with me about the exchange rate mechanism. Do not let anyone tell me that loosening the bonds, allowing money to flow even more freely, will make it easier to control drug money. That is a total contradiction. Let nobody try to tell me that this Bill has no bearing on these matters.
If it is possible, in this fairyland society, to control the flow of drug money, why do the Prime Minister and the other Ministers tell us that credit cannot be controlled? The reason is that, with the lifting of exchange and other controls, money is flowing here, there and everywhere. Let nobody, at this time of the night, tell me that, if credit cannot be controlled without such high interest rates, it will be possible to control this drug money. We cannot buy what the Government are trying to sell.
If this Bill is passed, it will not harm anyone, but it will not bake any bread either. Let that be understood. Some time ago the Prime Minister said, "We've got to do something about drugs. We'll control the money." Suppose that some Tory financier is found to have laundered or used money made from drugs, even if he did not actually make it himself. Does anyone really believe that, if the trail led to a Cabinet Minister, or to the friend or husband or wife of a Cabinet Minister, it would be admitted that the money had come out of a laundered drug fund? Does anyone believe that this Government would slap on proper controls? No, that would not happen. The authorities in the United States could not do anything about Noriega's money, so they captured Noriega. They had to abandon the idea of controlling the flow of money. They had to do something physical.
It is not the first time that such a Bill has been introduced. The Bill is based on a knee-jerk reaction. The Government want to tell the nation that they are doing something about the problem—"We are all in favour of apple pie and motherhood and against sin, so we will

introduce a Bill and tell the world that it will change everything." We all know that in a free, entrepreneurial society, where there are no controls, it is not possible to control the drug money. Let the Government get on with the Bill and get it carried in their quaint little way, but they should not expect anything serious to develop.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: When the Bill was published, concern was expressed in some quarters about its effect on tax offences in other countries. When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State heard about the concern, he dealt with it as we have come to expect of him—with promptitude and helpfulness. I express my gratitude to him for doing so.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The title of the Bill is the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill. An equally apposite name might have been the Criminal Justice (Inter-party Co-operation) Bill. I think that almost all hon. Members are in favour of it, perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who feels strongly about the matter; of course, I respect his strength of feeling. Apart from him, every hon. Member who has spoken in the House and in another place has done so warmly in favour of the principles of the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover that one cannot expect legislation to change human nature and to work wonders, but I think that this Bill will do many useful things.
Parliament has already been united in support of measures to combat the evils of drug trafficking and international crime. The Bill has been no exception. It is important that that should be so because the problems caused by international criminals, including drug traffickers, are very serious. It would be wrong if people who prey on society could feel that they had friends in any part of the House.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for their support of the Bill, which has been scrutinised properly in Committee. I am also grateful for the advice that we received over some months from the Select Committee on Home Affairs, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler). We have benefited much from that advice.
I am pleased that we were able to respond so quickly to the report of the Select Committee, to which my hon. Friend and others gave such distinguished service. The report was published on 8 November. With all-party co-operation, I do not think that we have done badly in managing to include some elements of the report in the Bill. We try as a Government to respond quickly and constructively to points made by Select Committees.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North about the loophole in the movement of cash connected with drugs. We have acted on it. However, he raised an issue that goes beyond the scope of the Bill and, indeed, the scope of my remarks on Third Reading if I am to stay within order—what we can do about the increasing amounts of cash derived from the proceeds of serious crime apart from drugs. The House will probably want to consider that matter over the next


couple of years. It may be raised, although not necessarily by the Government, in a forthcoming criminal justice measure. I think that we are on a rolling frontier. I welcome the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House are keen to develop ways of dealing with international crime, be it drugs or other serious crimes, which debauches the financial markets in the way to which the hon. Member for Bolsover referred.

Mr. Iain Mills: Will my right hon. Friend include in his comments the concern that has been expressed about industrial counterfeiting?

Mr. Patten: I know my hon. Friend's longstanding interest in that subject, a matter that we shall have to continue to consider in the Home Office and in the Department of Trade and Industry. I shall bear his point in mind.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr Vaz), who served on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, spoke about Customs. I shall draw his remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend. Plans are already in hand to train and instruct Customs officers in the operation of the new provisions, and there are plans to give greater advice to the general travelling public.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about people who travel always wearing a gold chain and the problems that can arise. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr Forth), is always impeccably dressed and adorned. I will brook no criticism of his sartorial standards, including the chains he wears.
In dealing with the preventive point of the hon. Member for Leicester, East, I must not stray too far on Third Reading. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Minister for Overseas Development in relation to the Gujarat coast. In the next three years, the United Kingdom's overseas aid for all drug-related purposes will be about £21 million.

Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East made a telling point. The Minister will recall that in Committee we discussed the training of Customs officers. Although my hon. Friends and I have given great support to the Bill, we have expressed concern about Customs officers who are ill-trained and who might pick on people taking cash through and hold that money. I appreciate that a new clause will allow interest to be paid on money that is held for some time, but we must consider the reputation of Customs officers in dealing with the people to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East referred, in terms of jewellery and so on.
We have commented on the way in which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs likes gold jewellery. It is no joking matter when a Customs officer can say, without good reason, at any time to somebody coming through Customs with a large amount of money that it could be drugs money. We could be embarking on a dangerous precedent. The Select Committee had a better suggestion, which was declaration.

Mr Patten: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for the proper training of Customs officers, men and women who sometimes have a difficult and sensitive task. I am happy to tell the House that plans for training, and for giving advice to the public, are well advanced.

My answer to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) is that, alas, we are unlikely to be able to ratify in the time available, not because we do not want to do so but because for ratification we shall need equivalent provisions for Northern Ireland. That will have to be done by way of an Order in Council, which the Government intend to bring forward as soon as possible.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Was it beyond the bounds of possibility for the drafting and introduction of that Northern Ireland instrument to have proceeded at the same time?

Mr. Patten: I am advised that even with the best endeavours it would not have been possible. I share my hon. Friend's disappointment. These matters are sometimes difficult, when we are translating provisions made on this to the other side of the water. I served as a junior Minister in the Northern Ireland Office and remember the complexity of translating the one to the other.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) found it unnerving to have the Home Secretary and I broadly agreeing with him. However, we did not say anything, so it is not on the record and will not affect his chances of reselection.
The anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) on schedule I perhaps go much wider than most other anxieties that have been expressed. But they are proper anxieties and I welcome the fact that he made those points to the House this evening. They relate more generally to the use that can be made overseas of evidence taken in this country or obtained from people who have travelled from this country to act as witnesses. His points were connected with the case of Captain Simon Hayward, in which my hon. Friend has taken such a notable interest.
The Bill cannot affect the law on admissibility of evidence in another country. Unfortunately, we can do nothing in this jurisdiction about the law in another country. In the normal course of events, people from Britain who are asked to travel abroad to give evidence in criminal proceedings will probably have a reasonable idea of the ground that they will be expected to cover when they appear in court. If they conclude, for whatever reason, that they do not wish to give the evidence sought, nothing in the Bill will permit them to be compelled so to do. I pondered carefully on what my hon. Friend has said about the matter in the past. But that is about as far as it is possible for the Bill to go. If someone travels voluntarily to another country to give evidence, he or she will naturally become subject to that country's laws. If he fails to respond to what, under the law of the country, may be a perfectly legitimate question, he may render himself liable to be penalised, in exactly the same way as if someone came here to give evidence in our courts.

Mr. Gorst: At the heart of my right hon. Friend's reply is the problem of which countries we are dealing with. If the country has a legal system that we respect—I mention no country by name—the fears do not arise in practice. However, if we find in practice that certain countries are guilty of abuses, will it be possible to revise the arrangements with those countries?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and future Home Secretaries will have substantial powers of discretion over whether to admit requests for evidence or to allow prisoners to be sent, with their consent, to give evidence. After all, if someone came to give evidence in our courts, we would expect him to abide by our law. If he refused to answer a question for some reason which was not acceptable on our terms, it would be open to the court to take action for contempt. I stress again that none of this is affected in any way by the Bill.
However, I was affected by the kind remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot). Several strong fears were put forward by the financial community. I tried to respond as swiftly as possible to make sure that the Bill satisfied the anxieties of the banking community and others in international accountancy and other contexts.
This is an important Bill. It will not in itself solve the problem of drug trafficking or international crime—it would be foolish to suggest that—but it will enhance our ability to co-operate with our friends and neighbours overseas in tackling these serious evils. As such, it is an important arrow in our legislative quiver.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

CONSUMER GUARANTEES BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Consumer Guarantees Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(i) any expenses incurred or compensation payable by a Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of

the application by the Act, in relation to its enforcement, of Part IV of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and
(ii) any increase attributable to the Act in consequence of such application in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act; and

(b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Forth.]

Statutory Instruments, £c.

RATING AND VALUATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft Gas and Electricity Industries (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

LEGAL AID AND ADVICE (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 6th March, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question agreed to.

Gynaecology (Privacy)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick]

Miss Emma Nicholson: My previous Adjournment debate might have been the shortest on record. I cannot claim that I shall break that record tonight, but I shall be as brief as possible as the Minister for Health has already dealt by letter with one of my two requests from that earlier Adjournment debate, which was reflected in its title.
Following my attempt to speak during my previous Adjournment debate and the Opposition's determined and successful efforts to ensure that women's health care issues were discounted at their pleasure, the Minister kindly wrote to me to state that she was altering the method of scrutinising hysterectomy data so that the women concerned could not be identified. I express not just my gratitude for her action, but that of the Royal College of General Practitioners, whose president, Dr Pereira Grey, practises in Exeter at the university.
Tonight I ask the Minister only to consider a particular aspect of the new contract for general practitioners. The contract contains many excellent features, but, as it is not yet in place, it naturally has some sharp edges. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health always listens and I am grateful to him for his thoughtful help on several issues during more than five years, war widows to name but one, and I know that he will listen to and think about what I say.
The cause of my concern is the new system of target payments for cervical smears. We have moved from stepped sessional payments to a steep incline. If a doctor reaches up to 50 per cent. of his target list—in England and Wales the target list is women between 25 and 65; in Scotland between 20 and 60—he will receive nothing. When he hits 50 per cent. and reaches up to 79 per cent. he will receive £760. For reaching 80 per cent. plus of his target he will receive the handsome sum of £2,260. Is that too steep an incline? I believe that it may have unexpected and possibly unwelcome results.
I do not question the importance of preventive medicine. During my time with the Save the Children Fund I launched the "Stop Polio" campaign. Several years ago I found to my abhorrence that, in Lambeth, children had a 37 per cent. uptake of immunisation against polio, but once the fund had established the campaign in Malawi, we managed to achieve a 95 per cent. success rate there. It is galling that in a developed country such as our own we should have such a low uptake of immunisation. The same is true of cervical smears.
Cervical smears represent intrusive preventive medicine and, although the GP has a crucial role to play, the final right to respond lies with the patient. The effectiveness of cervical smear has also been questioned—a subject into which I do not intend to delve. An article in The Lancet of 22 June 1989 questioned:
Do cervical smears reduce mortality and morbidity?
It asked whether there are some harmful effects from such smears. The case for smears is not quite as clear cut as that for immunisation against childhood diseases such as polio. I shall not explore that interesting matter, but I commend the article to the Minister. I am sure that he has seen it. I

believe that it contains some analysis, which, on reflection and once the cervical smear programme has continued, may prove to be more important than we now realise.
Tonight I want to draw attention to the steepness of the targeting. I want the Minister to consider the data that I offer in terms of lists from GPs, which demonstrate their difficulties in reaching their targets in an acceptable manner. The Minister should reconsider the way in which we can assure women that their preventive health care in this matter will be best looked after.
I believe that there should be a case for informed dissenters—women who are educated of the need to have a smear, are well informed, but who take the conscious decision not to have it. I should like such a woman not to be dominated by the knowledge that she may be disadvantaging her GP financially by a large sum of money. Consider the woman who might represent the 79 per cent. target rather than the 80 per cent. attainment, who believes that she is withholding that large sum of money from her doctor. I should like to find a way of allowing her to opt out without affecting the doctor's income.
The test is not thought to be relevant to certain categories of women—for instance, those who have never been sexually active, those who are severely mentally or physically handicapped, nuns, ethnic minorities, women who have had hysterectomies, the terminally ill and those undergoing treatment for long-term conditions. Let us take the example of ethnic minorities: given the clustering of different groups in the United Kingdom today, many women on the target list might well belong to a religion which would cause them to feel unhappy about being treated by a male practitioner in any event. I know that the Minister shares my concern about the shortage of women GPs. Younger women, in particular, will feel very distressed if the test is pressed on them as a matter of urgency and priority, but women in their early 60s,—whether or not they belong to ethnic minorities—will also feel unhappy if they are continually pressed to take the test, perhaps many years after they have ceased to be sexually active.
This is not an attempt to pretend that some GPs are unscrupulous and will be unpleasant. In the very best practices there may be an over-zealous receptionist. I received a letter from a widow of 64 who was deeply distressed. She had visited her GP and found that he was away; she saw a stand-in doctor, who, although delightful, "targeted" her fiercely, saying that if she did not have the test his income—or that of her own GP—would be at risk. She went home. Since then, the receptionist has telephoned her a number of times.
My constituency contains a higher-than-normal proportion of mentally handicapped people. I hasten to add that that is not caused by any inborn genetic error, but is due to exceptionally good provision of medical care and social welfare. Parents bring their children to live there, because they know that they will receive the best possible treatment. That has skewed the lists of some GPs—as has the fact that the constituency contains more than one convent: nuns and virgins are at almost incalculably low risk. A male doctor will be admitted to an enclosed convent only in extremis, and it would be extremely distressing if the sisters were subjected to such pressure.
At the other end of the spectrum, I was talking this morning to a GP in Glasgow who has an unusually high turnover of young women because of the local student


population. She has an annual "handover" of 12 per cent., but manages to target only 46 per cent. She is a very determined woman, and is keenly aware of the necessity involved. There is a good deal of social deprivation in her area, and she finds the pattern interesting. She writes letters to all the previous smear patients, and to all eligible women. I know that the Minister will be very interested to hear that the response rate from those eligible women, who are not normally seeing her, is as low as 5 per cent. I must admit that I am puzzled as to how a keen and eager woman GP with a large socially deprived population in the east end of Glasgow, who through her best efforts is reaching only 46 per cent. of the target, can do any better.
I have a batch of material from different areas, which I shall show the Minister after the debate, if I may. It contains letters from general practitioners telling me of their particular difficulties and why they find this a daunting target. One GP from Middlesex has an over-large number of special patient groups on his list, including a convent, two homes and five community hostels for the mentally handicapped. Another practice in the north-east reached 75·6 per cent. of its cervical cytology target in 1987–88. However, the GP does not believe that the practice can reach the 80 per cent. requirement for the higher target payment because of the resistance to smear tests encountered in women in the 60-64 age group. That is a prevalent feature in areas such as mine, where there is an unduly high age profile.
I have several other examples of where difficulties arise, including inner cities. A GP practising in Manchester states:
I am working in an inner city area where it's difficult enough to motivate people to come along anyway. If you do your patients' smears or vaccinations and then they move on
he also has an area where the mobility rate is high—
you find that you are doing work and not being paid for it.
The mobility of the British population causes great problems for GPs. The latest survey shows that we each move, on average, once every five years. The slowness with which medical records follow the patient makes it difficult for the GP to have an up-to-date and accurate register to obtain the payment. It is probable that only 45 per cent. of GPs have an accurate age, sex register.
If doctors have this steep target payment, it is difficult not to believe that at least a few of them will be intrusive and invasive, which may upset many women. I should be unhappy if that happened. While nearly all the doctors to whom I spoke were totally in favour of cervical screening for all sexually active females, they were also in favour of a woman's right to say no, without being afraid of upsetting her GP or even, in extreme cases, being asked to leave his or her list. Will the Minister consider those points?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) and convey to her the apologies of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health who cannot be with us tonight. My hon. Friend the Minister was hoping to have replied to an earlier attempt at this Adjournment debate, and I am a poor substitute to deal with this subject.
I welcome my hon. Friend's support for the screening programme. She describes it as invasive, which I can understand. It is an important programme for women between the ages of 25 and 64, who should be screened at least once every five years. We should not forget women over the age of 64, who should also benefit from regular screening, although they are not part of the more formal programme to which I referred. I am also grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the measures on anonymity of information which we have introduced, in terms of statistics passing from general practitioners to the family practitioner committee. That was an important step to protect information about individual hysterectomy becoming, at least in patients' minds, too widely known.
Some 2,000 deaths a year can still be attributed to cancer of the cervix, which is 2,000 too many. Screening can undoubtedly reduce that number. Experts in the Department of Health estimate that an effective screening programme could reduce that number by 80 per cent.
To illustrate our belief that we can do better, my hon. Friend might be interested in two recent reports, one from the Association of Community Health Councils of England and Wales, and the other from the department of epidemiology and social oncology in Manchester. They have published data based on their respective surveys of community health councils and district health authorities. Among community health councils, take-up has varied between 16 per cent. and 75 per cent. Of the 99 out of 185 community health councils which responded to the questionnaire, 34 gave an indication of take-up. The majority, 24, reported take-up ranging from 46 per cent. to 75 per cent.
Of the 178 out of 190 district health authorities which responded to the surveys, only 66 provided information on take-up; 22—33 per cent.—reported take-up of between 51 per cent. and 75 per cent., and 28–42 per cent.—reported take-up of between 26 per cent. and 50 per cent. My hon. Friend will agree that we can and should do better to save the lives of as large a proportion as possible of the 2,000 or so women who die each year. Those statistics suggest that we can do better.
The present position is as my hon. Friend described it. It might be helpful to put it on the record that for the lower base payment to be made there must be a 50 per cent. take-up. If that is achieved, on each quarter day after 1 April one quarter of £760—the amount payable per annum for the average practice—will be paid. The average practice will have 430 women. If the practice is larger, the payment will be commensurately larger, and vice versa. The figures that my hon. Friend quoted were for average practices.
If at the end of the quarter in question more than 50 per cent. of the available patients who fall to be screened have been screened, the payment will be made, and the same applies to successive quarters. If the percentage arising on the quarter day is 80 per cent. or more, the sum will be three times higher. My hon. Friend referred to £2,280, and a quarter of that will be paid on the quarter days.
Health authority clinics can do the screening. If they do, they contribute to achieving the target, but the doctor does not receive the proportionate payment for what the clinic achieves. The same is true for immunisation and vaccination.
It is important to note that we have increased the capitation payments which apply whether or not the


doctor achieves either the lower or the higher targets. As my hon. Friend will recall, that has been increased from £8·95 to £12·40 per head per annum.
It might be helpful if I try to set down four basic aims of the screening programme. First, we want to try to reach all categories at risk. I have to part company with my hon. Friend at this point because the Department has received medical advice that all women, except those who have had hysterectomies, whatever their status or professional calling in society and whatever their history of sexual activity, are in theory liable to catch cancer of the cervix. We want to reach all categories.
Secondly, we believe that reaching the 50 per cent. target should be achievable for all doctors. It is interesting to note that the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body, in its calculation of the average award for next year of an 11·5 per cent. increase in remuneration, assumed that all doctors would achieve at least the basic 50 per cent.
Thirdly, the higher target—the 80 per cent. target—should be seen as a real bonus and challenge. The nub of the problem that my hon. Friend described is the pressure that may arise through seeking to achieve a higher bonus. However, we have so structured it that it presents an additional 0·8 per cent. in doctors' remuneration, so that if a doctor achieves the higher target, his remuneration is increased by 12·3 per cent. for the year 1990–91.
My hon. Friend cited certain categories for potential exclusion. I am not suggesting that we should act on her proposals, but if we did, logically we should aim for 100 per cent. target payment. If we excluded all those categories, including those who refused screening as a matter of conscience and those who failed to respond to two or more letters, instead of the 80 per cent. target which is an attempt to recognise that some women may not wish to enter the screening programme, we should increase the target figure.
Our fourth aim is to reach all geographic areas of the country. My hon. Friend referred to inner city problems. She must have been thinking of the Asian community where social or religious pressures might be involved in any consideration of taking up the screening programme. She might be interested to know that we have recently funded four cancer screening development workers at Kirklees, Camberwell, Liverpool and north-west Thames. I have seen the link workers working with the Asian community in Leicester—particularly the women—to explain the benefits of screening. It is vital to make sure that women doctors are available to provide the screening.
We also provide an extra incentive for those working in the inner cities who may have difficulty reaching the higher target figures by providing a special inner city supplement of £8·80 per head. That is the maximum, so with an average patient list of 2,000 patients in a practice in an inner city deprived area, the doctor could earn £17,000 over and above the remuneration that would be payable in my hon. Friend's constituency or mine which do not suffer from inner city deprivation.
I am not suggesting that that is a substitute for achieving the higher target figure, but it must be remembered that it is a relatively generous programme that will affect 10 per cent. of the population.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: There is a serious question of interference with civil liberties and individual freedom. Nobody would challenge the well-meaning nature of what

the Government are doing and the desirability of it, but I hope that my hon. Friend will keep in mind that in some areas, such as my constituency, substantial numbers of Muslim ladies do not want to subject themselves to the screening programme; nor do the doctors wish to impose it on them. I have heard of a doctor who has 600 nuns on his list of patients. In those circumstances there are considerable problems. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about these matters, and I ask him to bear in mind the strength of feeling. There comes a time when the nanny state should not go too far and invade people's freedom.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. and learned Gentleman re-emphasised the main and final point that my hon. Friend raised—

Mr. Lawrence: I am the Minister's hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Freeman: The hour is late and this is the third Adjournment debate that I have dealt with in the past 48 hours.
Members of the Muslim community are as liable to cancer of the cervix as are those in any other section of the community and it is our responsibility to make sure that there are proper incentives, and no more, for the general practitioners involved to educate and encourage members of the Muslim community, as well as nuns and virgins, to have screening. The medical advice that we have received is that all except people who have had hysterectomies could be susceptible to cancer of the cervix and it could be beneficial for them to have regular screening.
I look forward to studying the cases presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West. It is most unprofessional for a doctor to place pressure on a patient over and above explaining the benefits of screening. Such pressure is unnecessary and reprehensible, and where it occurs the Department will ensure that family practitioner committees pursue it.
It is not our aim that pressure should be placed on women. If they decide, for whatever reason, not to take the screening test, that is their right and no further pressure should be brought to bear. That should not entail a penalty for doctors. I have already said that achievement of the higher target will bring a bonus—an increase in average remuneration of 11·5 per cent. We do not want doctors to give up once they have reached the 50 per cent. base target and to say, "I shall never reach the target of 80 per cent., so I will make no further effort." They should remember that a capitation payment is offered, and that it is their duty to draw to patients' attention the benefits of the screening programme.
May I give my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West five assurances? First, I shall report directly what has been said tonight to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who is concerned about the matter. Secondly, the Department will carefully monitor the outcome of the new doctors' contract and whether pressure is brought to bear on patients. Thirdly, we shall give careful thought to the national campaigns and to the campaigns aimed at explaining to the ethnic minority communities the benefits of screening in a sensible and balanced way. Fourthly, the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body will monitor carefully the remuneration of doctors to ensure that they suffer no financial penalties if, after hard endeavours, they


are unable to reach the higher target. Fifthly, I look forward to reading the dozen cases that my hon. Friend mentioned. I shall pursue them and write in detail to her.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.